Why is D&D still Medieval?

[Anonymouswizard]

When most of us say 'D&D is a Western' we mean 'D&D is a frontier adventure featuring drifting heroes and "bandits"'. It's not 100% actuate, but it's a good rough weird description.

Of course this doesn't apply as much to modern D&D (which doesn't know what it wants to be), and arguably not to the very first implementations (Castle Greyhawk and all that, I'm not sure about Blackmoor). But it was the assumed campaign model for a good portion of it's existence.

[Lord Raziere]

When most of us say 'D&D is a Western' we mean 'D&D is a frontier adventure featuring drifting heroes and "bandits"'. It's not 100% actuate, but it's a good rough weird description.

Of course this doesn't apply as much to modern D&D (which doesn't know what it wants to be), and arguably not to the very first implementations (Castle Greyhawk and all that, I'm not sure about Blackmoor). But it was the assumed campaign model for a good portion of it's existence.

I guess....it just doesn't make any sense to me. seems like a very out of nowhere association. it just doesn't feel right to call it that, when its so clearly supposed to be fantasy medieval? I'm not one to start applying some weird label just because a bunch of people on the internet make a web of rough connections to somehow say one thing is another in disguise and think its somehow logical to insist on that rather than go with...what is at least intended to be.

[Satinavian]

Cosidering most of the Western i have seen are Red Western, i never did that association to D&D.

As for D&D itself, in most of my earlier groups all those medieval trappings let us to play it as a game for medieval settings. And it was bad at that which is why all those groups eventually switched systems.


Nowadays i kinda can see the connection if i squint enough. D&D as it is possibly meant to be played works a bit like a kind of Westersn i hardly know. You could probably have a fun game using this. Unfortunately ithis is not a genre i am interested in so others might try it.

[Yora]

D&D only uses medieval props, like swords, armor, and castles. (Much of it actually being shown in post-medieval styles.) But there isn't really anything that touches on medieval culture, society, and ways of life.
Mentally, people in D&D worlds are really more based on mid 19th century mentalities. But of course, not like London, Paris, or Berlin.

[Anonymouswizard]

To get D&D you throw pulp fantasy, medieval and early Renaissance trappings, wargaming mechanics, and the plot of a Western into a pot, season with Tolkien, and cook for six editions.

It's not bad, many great games have been made by combining disparate elements together, but D&D maybe lacks a strong central theme to tie it together beyond 'in search of riches'. Plus all the problems it has with people making assumptions about it that just aren't true, generally 'it's generic fantasy' and 'it's medieval'.

Changeling: the Lost is a great game because it will steal trappings from anything you could reasonably call a 'fairy tale' and then some, throws in some original aesthetics, and then uses a variation on the Channeling myth to bring it all around to an exploration of being an abuse survivor. Yes it's set against an explicitly modern backdrop (by default), but there's just as much worldbuilding as in many D&D settings.

[Beleriphon]

I guess....it just doesn't make any sense to me. seems like a very out of nowhere association. it just doesn't feel right to call it that, when its so clearly supposed to be fantasy medieval? I'm not one to start applying some weird label just because a bunch of people on the internet make a web of rough connections to somehow say one thing is another in disguise and think its somehow logical to insist on that rather than go with...what is at least intended to be.

D&D is often compared to Western in Medieval Fantasy drag. None of the structures of D&D in terms of game play mimic the kinds of themes or processes you see in fantasy literature. While most of them do mimic what you would see in a mid-century Western. You have a band of wandering heroes going forth and killing the locals at the behest of the the town in exchange for loot. There is more to a Western than cowboy hats and horses.

So lets look at some examples:

The Mandalorian is a basically a western story, despite being Star Wars. In a lot of ways the first few episodes are pretty much Mando being the Man with No Name, right down to the slightly gravelly voice that mimics Clint Eastwood.

The Seven Samurai and Yojimbo are often referred to westerns, despite both being very clearly set in Sengoku Period or Edo Period Japan (I'd have to go watch them to figure out which specifically, but visually it doesn't matter too much). The fact that the plots and characters of The Magnificent Seven and A Fist Full of Dollars borrowed from Kurosawa just provides further evidence. Neither of Kurosawa's movies shares much in common with stories typically seen in traditional Japanese literature/media you find noh or kabuki. Kurosawa was very specifically imitating an American style of movie using Japanese aesthetics, although Yojimbo's plot is inspired by a Dashiel Hemmet detective novel.

Star Trek was pitched as Wagon Train in the stars, although I suspect that was more about episode format with a familiar cast visiting a new place every episode. None-the-less you can see Western elements in Star Trek (much less so starting with The Motion Picture).

Lets look at Wikipedia's entry on the Western genre.

Westerns often stress the harshness of the wilderness and frequently set the action in an arid, desolate landscape of deserts and mountains. Often, the vast landscape plays an important role, presenting a "mythic vision of the plains and deserts of the American West."[2] Specific settings include ranches, small frontier towns, saloons, railways, wilderness, and isolated military forts of the Wild West.

So, other than the specification of the American West, usually meaning anything west of the Mississippi River to denote a wild and untamed wilderness, that description can apply to most early D&D style adventures. Keep on the Borderlands for example could be plunked down in the Arizona Territory circa 1870 as easily as it could Greyhawk. Otherwise, the small frontier towns, taverns/inns (which almost always operate like a saloon not a medieval inn or tavern), wilderness, isolated forts, and ranches are D&D staples. The only thing D&D doesn't have, usually to keep its medieval fantasy facade, is a railway.

Nobody is saying that D&D is a straight western, because it isn't. But it is the closest well understood approximation in terms of structure and over all pacing and plot structure to compare it to. The actual closest is probably something like Conan or Ffard and the Grey Mouser, but both of those still use the pacing and structure of a Western to tell their weird tales. Basically, people realized that the Western genre fit D&D better than the fantasy genre in terms of the type of game D&D sells itself as, which in turn lead to people basing their adventures on the story beats of a Western.

Edit: The idea that D&D is even remotely medieval is based on at best faulty research derived from Victorian ideas about history and how everything evolves and can only get better. For example, the idea of a knight being lifted onto a horse with a crane and being unable to stand up under his own power if he fell over is completely wrong. Wearing any substantial amount of armour is going to be an impediment to movement, but a knight could definitely get on a horse on his own and stand up if he fell over. If you want to look at a modern example, fortunately fringe example, the Ancient Alien/Ancient Astronaut theory is a good one. The basic concept can be boiled down to Our Ancestors Were Idiots.

[Tanarii]

I'm just not seeing the western thing. D&D is about a team going tomb robbing and avoiding traps and monsters in order to get rich, with an optional hiring armies and building a stronghold component that's now generally skipped. Westerns are usually about a solo stranger wandering into town and killing all the bad guys.

The Wild Bunch is about the only western I know that comes close, in that they're a team, but they're a Heist team.

Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, and The Mummy are closer to D&D than Clint Eastwood is by spades. Heck, even Heist movies like Oceans 11 are closer, except for the retroactive plot/fate points being spent left and right.

[Yora]

Plus all the problems it has with people making assumptions about it that just aren't true, generally 'it's generic fantasy' and 'it's medieval'.

Those aren't misconceptions about D&D, though. That's lack of knowledge about the Middle Ages and narrow experiences with fantasy.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm just not seeing the western thing. D&D is about a team going tomb robbing and avoiding traps and monsters in order to get rich, with an optional hiring armies and building a stronghold component that's now generally skipped. Westerns are usually about a solo stranger wandering into town and killing all the bad guys.

The Wild Bunch is about the only western I know that comes close, in that they're a team, but they're a Heist team.

Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, and The Mummy are closer to D&D than Clint Eastwood is by spades.

Oh, Indiana Jones is totally an AD&D Thief. Read Languages, sneaking about, trap disarming... even the fact that he's a decent fighter until he meets up with a real warrior-type, then generally wins by being clever (maneuvering the guy into a propeller) or unconventional (shooting the guy offering a sword fight). He even backstabs, though it's more of "sapping", in that he's using surprise to knock someone out.

As for the "tomb robbing and avoiding traps", I'd point to Red Hand of Doom, or the first portion of Night Below, both of which focus on mustering the forces of a local area into resistance against an army. Or the 1e Bloodstone Lands series. And lots of Westerns are team adventures, from the Magnificent Seven and Silverado to Rio Bravo and the Cowboys.... Red Hand of Doom is Magnificent Seven writ large (or Three Amigos, depending on your group)

As Duiker observed, one of my major points in the original essay was how the view of non-human characters in D&D tended to mirror the view of non-American characters in Westerns, where race/nationality defined personality, and how those two positions have developed through the years. That the social position of PCs tends to mimic that of protagonist "cowboys" in Westerns is part of this, to be sure, as is the position of race for PCs... a PC *might* be a stereotype (q.v. Jay Silverheel's Tonto), a caricature (q.v. Johnny Depp's Tonto), or they might be more fully realized (q.v. Chavez from Young Guns), and that the incidence of these has changed over the years. In earlier D&D, there'd be a lot of accusations of playing a "pointy eared human" if you played Chavez, with every elf being expected to be Tonto, in either incarnation. Now, playing Chavez is the expected norm, while the Tontos tend to get sidelined.

In a way, the "Is D&D a Western", and the discourse around it, is reminds me of Pirsig's Romantic v. Classical split, in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Romantic views see the forms taken... the gunslinging, the Stetsons... whereas Classical looks at the underlying structure. Neither are WRONG, but the different viewpoints tend to result in incompatible understandings of the object of discussion.

[Willie the Duck]

Star Trek was pitched as Wagon Train in the stars, although I suspect that was more about episode format with a familiar cast visiting a new place every episode. None-the-less you can see Western elements in Star Trek (much less so starting with The Motion Picture).

My understanding was that it was the episodic nature, plus a familiar cast visiting new places and (although this didn't happen as much as they'd hoped in that pitch) having celebrities of the moment show up for an episode. If it had been a thing in the 60s, it might have been billed as The Love Boat in the stars instead.

[Beleriphon]

I'm just not seeing the western thing. D&D is about a team going tomb robbing and avoiding traps and monsters in order to get rich, with an optional hiring armies and building a stronghold component that's now generally skipped. Westerns are usually about a solo stranger wandering into town and killing all the bad guys.

The Wild Bunch is about the only western I know that comes close, in that they're a team, but they're a Heist team.

Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, and The Mummy are closer to D&D than Clint Eastwood is by spades.

Look past the specific aethestic and you can see the similarities. Westerns are in many ways defined by their aesthetics, but stuff like The Seven Samurai, The Mandalorian, and Firefly all demonstrate you can have a western without looking like a western. Hell, The Mandalorian episode The Heiress is basically a train heist.

As for Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, and The Mummy they're all Pulp Adventure, of which the Western genre is part of and ended up being the most enduring. Remember that at the time the stories that inspired those adventures were published in the by the same magazines a westerns, they come from the same place. The Western just happened to become the most popular through the 40s, 50s, and 60s in Hollywood because you can film them literally 100 miles from your studio offices and not have to build crazy sets and costumes.

Clint Eastwood's spaghetti westerns aren't overly typical of the genre, although they are great movies. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is about three guys (an adventuring party) out to get rich by finding a lost treasure. In fact most westerns had pretty good sized cast, stuff like Rawhide was about a family ranch and their (mis)adventures. Wagon Train was the itinerant band of settlers going to a new place every week and having an adventure.

Its super easy to transplant a western story pretty much straight into D&D because they tend to work on the same tropes, while taking something more akin to romanticism, which on the surface is easier to apply the veneer of D&D elves and goblins and what not, harder since you kind of have to shoehorn some stuff into place. Thus it the idea that D&D has more DNA in common with westerns then it does with the fantasy genre.

I think you have the order wrong. The Magnificent Seven is an adaptation of The Seven Samurai, not the other way around.

That could be clearer in my description, I have a for that count be read as from some where. I'm aware that both Yojimbo and The Seven Samurai came first. My commentary is that the The Magnificent Seven and a Fist Full of Dollars both lifted the plots and characterization from Kurosawa's movies. And Kurosawa intentionally took more western, both in the sense of The West geopolitically and genre, stories to make those films.

[Calthropstu]

Responding to the op.

Many have already noted, but I'd like to add: I LIKE swords and sorcery. I strongly dislike mixing magic and tech. I want to play the knight in shining armor, the mage with flowing robes and a staff, the pious magic casting cleric bringing healing to the masses. I want to rescue the princess from the dragon.

D&D plays to all the fantasy tropes. It's not a sci-fi game. It's DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. And that just isn't in modern times. There are very few such adventures in sci-fi.

[Tanarii]

I wouldn't know about the Mandalorian but there's nothing "Western" about Firefly. Despite all the trappings.

And Eastwood is pretty much the definition of Western

[Anonymouswizard]

Those aren't misconceptions about D&D, though. That's lack of knowledge about the Middle Ages and narrow experiences with fantasy.

Oh, sure, but especially the latter still annoys me.

D&D plays to all the fantasy tropes.

No, it plays to a select number of Fantasy tropes, generally those associated with pulp fantasy novels of roughly the 30s and 40s. There's a lot of fantasy novels I'd have a hard time recreating with D&D, The Lord of the Rings and Lord Foul's Bane spring to mind alongside Narnia and The Dresden Files.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't agree with the whole "this bunch of underlying structure stuff somehow makes it western".

I don't feel like I'm in a western when I'm playing a game. and again what you say are characteristics of a western seem pretty universal action-adventure stuff to me. and I don't really like defining things by an older label that says a thing isn't a thing that it meant to be, because it doesn't make me want to say DnD is a western, it just makes disappointed and frustrated that its not a medieval fantasy and apparently needs to work harder to be considered one, because if a western doesn't even have the best parts of a western, what is even the point?

[Willie the Duck]

what is even the point?

Point? There's no point. We're throwing things into buckets and then discussing if the vaguely teal bucket is bluish green or greenish blue.

[LibraryOgre]

I wouldn't know about the Mandalorian but there's nothing "Western" about Firefly. Despite all the trappings.

And Eastwood is pretty much the definition of Western

John Wayne was pretty notorious for hating Eastwood's Westerns, in part because of the development of the genre away from he thought Westerns should be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, it plays to a select number of Fantasy tropes, generally those associated with pulp fantasy novels of roughly the 30s and 40s. There's a lot of fantasy novels I'd have a hard time recreating with D&D, The Lord of the Rings and Lord Foul's Bane spring to mind alongside Narnia and The Dresden Files.

Honestly, recreating any fantasy novel in D&D even those ostensibly D&D related (ie Drizzt) is a losing proposition. D&D (at least modern D&D) does not claim to do anything but TT D&D. It's not a fantasy novel recreation package. The tropes, contexts, and structures that work in a fantasy novel generally do not work in a TTRPG (or video game for that matter) without substantial intentional system support. Heck, those "D&D novels" don't even follow the TTRPG rules. They're set in a similar (but different) universe from the games. And the 5e team has been very explicit about this being the intended thing.

D&D is not (comfortably) a western. It's not comfortably a generic fantasy game. It's really nothing but D&D. D&D does D&D. Not even novel D&D.

But, in general, trying to pigeonhole anything into one specific genre or trying to draw the lines too brightly is a futile endeavor. Genres are way too squishy and fuzzy for that.

[Anonymouswizard]

Point? There's no point. We're throwing things into buckets and then discussing if the vaguely teal bucket is bluish green or greenish blue.

Pretty much this.

Honestly, recreating any fantasy novel in D&D even those ostensibly D&D related (ie Drizzt) is a losing proposition. D&D (at least modern D&D) does not claim to do anything but TT D&D. It's not a fantasy novel recreation package. The tropes, contexts, and structures that work in a fantasy novel generally do not work in a TTRPG (or video game for that matter) without substantial intentional system support. Heck, those "D&D novels" don't even follow the TTRPG rules. They're set in a similar (but different) universe from the games. And the 5e team has been very explicit about this being the intended thing.

True, but if I want a setting like the Land from the first Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series it's difficult because the system is just not set up for those worldbuilding tropes. Which I suppose is mainly my point rather than narrative tropes. One to one parity between a game and literature, even within the same brand, shouldn't be the goal, but we can determine a difference between 'can probably reasonably handle any fantasy setting you throw at it' and 'only works for a setting making these assumptions'. Even if neither is better.

D&D is not (comfortably) a western. It's not comfortably a generic fantasy game. It's really nothing but D&D. D&D does D&D. Not even novel D&D.

But, in general, trying to pigeonhole anything into one specific genre or trying to draw the lines too brightly is a futile endeavor. Genres are way too squishy and fuzzy for that.

Yes, but this is a discussion on the internet. You're meant to decide if your preferred cake is red velvet or devil's food and ignore all actual points the other side makes

[PhoenixPhyre]

True, but if I want a setting like the Land from the first Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series it's difficult because the system is just not set up for those worldbuilding tropes. Which I suppose is mainly my point rather than narrative tropes. One to one parity between a game and literature, even within the same brand, shouldn't be the goal, but we can determine a difference between 'can probably reasonably handle any fantasy setting you throw at it' and 'only works for a setting making these assumptions'. Even if neither is better.

Sure. And I can't find any text that points modern editions[1] of D&D as being anything other than "only works for a setting making these assumptions". The 5e DMG is very explicit about what it considers the core (worldbuilding) assumptions. It mentions some variations, but they're mild compared to the scope of "all fantasy literature". Because the set of fantasy worlds is way broader than any sane system could even hope to accommodate. And yes, that includes explicitly generic ones[2]. GURPS doesn't really get you anything other than "really gritty, basically realistic". FATE ends up being pulp-like no matter how you spin it.

There are lots of settings that aren't amenable (easily at least) to being translated into a TTRPG world. Because fundamentally, the underlying narrative tropes are still there and get in the way. Fantasy worlds are built around and on top of these tropes. Even if not intentionally. That, and many of them aren't well defined enough (especially their magic systems) to attempt to mechanize them. They run on "the authors thought this was cool". And even the ones that are defined (Sanderson comes to mind here) aren't conducive without severe approximations. Because what works well in novel form is not what works well in game mechanics form. Even at the worldbuilding level.

I've found the most success in worldbuilding by leaning in to the system. Instead of trying to import a world from an alien "system", build one that looks at the system and asks "ok, what needs to be true for this system to harmonize with the world." You could do the reverse, take a world and build a system around it. But that is going to get you something that's good for that world and not much else. Every system makes assumptions. Even generic ones. And those assumptions bind hard.

[1] 4e and 5e. 3e tried to genericize the system, but even 3e D&D (as opposed to the D20 system) isn't generic and doesn't claim to be.
[2] Which D&D isn't. Not at all. Nor does it claim to be. Sure, people assume it is, based on third-hand rumors from other people and confusing the d20 system with 3e D&D, but it isn't and doesn't claim to be generic. It's very firmly D&D-genre. With all the underlying assumptions that come along with it.

[LibraryOgre]

Honestly, recreating any fantasy novel in D&D even those ostensibly D&D related (ie Drizzt) is a losing proposition. D&D (at least modern D&D) does not claim to do anything but TT D&D.

A former DM of mine claimed that, at a convention, RA Salvatore would always put at least 1 thing clearly impossible by the rules in every book, just to be sure his books weren't being used to justify weird things in games.

[Tanarii]

John Wayne was pretty notorious for hating Eastwood's Westerns, in part because of the development of the genre away from he thought Westerns should be.

That makes sense. Wayne's stuff was terrible knockoffs and Eastwood's was genre defining. Even though they were back to front time wise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A former DM of mine claimed that, at a convention, RA Salvatore would always put at least 1 thing clearly impossible by the rules in every book, just to be sure his books weren't being used to justify weird things in games.

But sadly people don't read. Or if they do, they get the order of precedence wrong and assume "book character did it" == "it's RAW".

I vaguely remember a quote from the current 5e style guide which basically says "novels are alternate versions and don't use/make rule precedent", but I'd have to find it.

[Xuc Xac]

Responding to the op.

Many have already noted, but I'd like to add: I LIKE swords and sorcery. I strongly dislike mixing magic and tech. I want to play the knight in shining armor, the mage with flowing robes and a staff, the pious magic casting cleric bringing healing to the masses. I want to rescue the princess from the dragon.

D&D plays to all the fantasy tropes. It's not a sci-fi game. It's DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. And that just isn't in modern times. There are very few such adventures in sci-fi.

I saw a fantasy movie a lot like that. A wizard gives a farm boy a magic sword and convinces him to join his quest to rescue a princess from the castle of a dark knight with a flaming sword. Along the way, they are helped by a rogue and his ogre sidekick.

It was called "Star Wars".

[Witty Username]

I wouldn't know about the Mandalorian but there's nothing "Western" about Firefly. Despite all the trappings.

And Eastwood is pretty much the definition of Western

I think the term I have seen is "Used Future", which ends up borrowing some colors and clothing styles from western and dystopia.
I may be the wrong person to ask about westerns, the only western I have strong feelings about is Blazing Saddles.


Why are D&D settings still medieval, or more accurately seemingly unaffected by the passage of time in any realistic way? Short answer, Medieval stasis. Longer answer fantasy has ingrained in its genre a sense of stagnation combined with a set series of ascetics, and writers sense of the scale of time is on par with their sense of scale for space, likely because time and space are connected via the concept of spacetime. Also, people are somewhat adverse to change in general.

Why is D&D a medieval setting in a general sense (European architecture, Feudal systems with monarchs, longswords and plate armor)? Because it is fantasy ascetics and people like it. It wouldn't be a problem if the settings were kept in the space of about a human life time (for the purposes of play). The problem arises when WOTC skips time forward to make changes and reboots them because they killed off the reasons group X liked the setting, leaving an at best cyclical timeline when a more realistic model would be accrued changes over time eventually leading to an only vaguely recognizable setting. But as mentioned people don't like their preferred settings changing anyway.

D&D shouldn't do sci fi. Magic is too ingrained in the underlying systems, especially in 5e. D&D can do science fantasy and space fantasy; fantasy settings that borrow the ascetics of sci fi, like spaceships fueled by ancient magic or vast interstellar empires ruled by sorcerers. I would point to settings like Krull, She-ra, and Star Wars. Also Eberron and Spelljammer for home grown settings although YMMV.

[Gemini Lupus]

I wouldn't know about the Mandalorian but there's nothing "Western" about Firefly. Despite all the trappings.

And Eastwood is pretty much the definition of Western

In what way is there nothing “Western” about Firefly? It is literally billed as a “space western.” All the plots are taken straight from Western stories, it utilizes tropes common (though not exclusive to) westerns, the characters are all based on Western archetypes, and heck, Mal and Zoe are Confederate Civil War veterans.

I don't agree with the whole "this bunch of underlying structure stuff somehow makes it western".

I don't feel like I'm in a western when I'm playing a game. and again what you say are characteristics of a western seem pretty universal action-adventure stuff to me. and I don't really like defining things by an older label that says a thing isn't a thing that it meant to be, because it doesn't make me want to say DnD is a western, it just makes disappointed and frustrated that its not a medieval fantasy and apparently needs to work harder to be considered one, because if a western doesn't even have the best parts of a western, what is even the point?

But it is the underlying structure which is the substance of a thing, not the dressing, which are its accidents. D&D is not exclusively a western, but it plays on many of the same themes and character archetypes, even if it doesn’t have all of the trappings and accidents of a Western. I might even dub it a “medieval fantasy western.” Your mileage may vary based on the particular campaign setting or gaming style, but the game as written draws upon the tradition of westerns, many of which also come from the “universal action-adventure stuff” as you call it. However, I think that the western has been so ingrained in American pop culture that much of the substance of westerns has entered the subconscious of writers, storytellers, game designers, and dungeon masters. Most of the pulp fiction which Gygax and Co. drew from trace their direct inspiration from pulp westerns of the 19th century.

As an aside, Pulp Fiction is 100% a western in modern day clothing. In fact, I can’t think of a single Tarantino film that isn’t a western at its core.

[Lord Raziere]

But it is the underlying structure which is the substance of a thing, not the dressing, which are its accidents. D&D is not exclusively a western, but it plays on many of the same themes and character archetypes, even if it doesn’t have all of the trappings and accidents of a Western. I might even dub it a “medieval fantasy western.” Your mileage may vary based on the particular campaign setting or gaming style, but the game as written draws upon the tradition of westerns, many of which also come from the “universal action-adventure stuff” as you call it. However, I think that the western has been so ingrained in American pop culture that much of the substance of westerns has entered the subconscious of writers, storytellers, game designers, and dungeon masters. Most of the pulp fiction which Gygax and Co. drew from trace their direct inspiration from pulp westerns of the 19th century.

As an aside, Pulp Fiction is 100% a western in modern day clothing. In fact, I can’t think of a single Tarantino film that isn’t a western at its core.

I Disagree.

What your saying is that a western is nothing, because its some abstract structure you don't define, and thus can't point to, that has numerous similarities to things that aren't western at all. All you say is a bunch of other things are "western in different clothing". when I don't see how, because I don't see underlying structures, I see what happens, and unless you have some power to see what I can't, its just your interpretation. just because something is in the style of a thing doesn't mean it is that thing.

Dnd is medieval fantasy. it features knights, lords, swords, medieval structures of society, and so on. these are not aesthetics. every detail is important and physical world is just as important as the abstract. I don't believe in reducing things to window dressing. the idea of a traveling hero has been around for far longer than westerns. the idea of an other that needs to be killed, also longer. and if you think a bunch of villages separated by wilderness needing help is anything new, these are things are older than westerns.

really if we're playing the "this trope comes from that trope" argument, westerns aren't westerns. they are just knight errant stories and chivalric romances with modern updates.

[Gemini Lupus]

really if we're playing the "this trope comes from that trope" argument, westerns aren't westerns. they are just knight errant stories and chivalric romances with modern updates.

I have no problem saying that westerns are knight errant stories adapted for a 19th century (or 20th century romantic view of the 19th century) context. But there are certain tropes which if they don’t originate with the western, were defined by the western. I do see the underlying structures, I’m speaking from years of amateur/hobby literary and film analysis. It doesn’t make me an expert, but I have a not-so-marketable skill.

The discussion is much more nuanced than you are making it out to be, but you make a lot of good points. I just thought I had a couple of coppers to throw into the discussion that would contribute to the conversation.

[Satinavian]

However, I think that the western has been so ingrained in American pop culture that much of the substance of westerns has entered the subconscious of writers, storytellers, game designers, and dungeon masters. Most of the pulp fiction which Gygax and Co. drew from trace their direct inspiration from pulp westerns of the 19th century.

But roleplaying games and also D&D are played way beyond the reach of cultural influence of western and specifically pulp western. And that tends to show when stuff out of D&D books clashes with players, dms and writers who are not socialized this way.
I mean there are more than a dozen European systems from the nineties that are bysically D&D but in a real Medieval setting with corresponding social classes, plots, cultures etc. Those were written because D&D simply didn't work when played by people not familiar with pulpy western tropes.

[Beleriphon]

But roleplaying games and also D&D are played way beyond the reach of cultural influence of western and specifically pulp western. And that tends to show when stuff out of D&D books clashes with players, dms and writers who are not socialized this way.
I mean there are more than a dozen European systems from the nineties that are bysically D&D but in a real Medieval setting with corresponding social classes, plots, cultures etc. Those were written because D&D simply didn't work when played by people not familiar with pulpy western tropes.

Which just reinforces that D&D uses western genre tropes and concepts and dresses them as medieval fantasy. I also don't think the western genre tropes are intentional by any means, just that they are so ingrained into the way most Americans think that they seep into things. Look at the difference is police dramas in UK versus US,, or the difference between UK crime and American crime films. There's a reason that Hot Fuzz makes fun of US cinema, and Simon Pegg said there hasn't ever really been a British film about good cops (I can't comment on that specifically not being an aficionado of British police films). There is a long tradition of UK copper movies being about the anti-heroic criminals and the cops being bent, while US has a long tradition of copper movies about heroic lone (or duos) cops fighting the good fight against indifferent superiors and a corrupt system.

I supposed my point is that using the tropes, pacing, and general western genre vibe will get you closer to the D&D style adventure than trying to follow the general tropes of things like LotR. Basically if you ask yourself, "What would The Man with No Name do here" you'll probably end up with a pretty good D&D answer.