Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1034807Crom's hairy nutsack.  Has ANYBODY read Dying Earth?

True. Dying Earth is basically the Ur-Example of a coherent D&D setting where its tropes all have logical reasons for existing.

There's been a thread over at TBP I've been reading with interest about the real-world origins and inspirations for all the different D&D monsters (in order of of appearance starting with the first OD&D material) and the pulps and genre movies of the era are easily the greatest contributor to its monster list (Tolkien's monsters were pretty quickly exhausted within the first OD&D material). So too I think it would be safe to say are works like Vance's Dying Earth are as, if not more, foundational to D&D as The Lord of the Rings ever was.

The massive perception that Tolkien was the primary source for D&D I think has as more to do with 3rd Edition deliberately aping the artistic style of "The Lord of the Rings" films because they coincided with the release of 3e and by the time 3.5e hit in 2003 the film trilogy was fully codified as that generation's "Star Wars" and D&D's artwork has never looked back (ex. 3.5 was where the default elves starting going from the short Peter Pan looking fellows to the tall and regal versions of Tolkien). The result has been that a lot of the stuff in D&D that makes perfect sense in the context of a world like the one presented by Vance doesn't feel like a logical fit with the setting of a more Tolkien-esque world.

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how little historical/folk references seem to impact D&D. Even when some of the founders were wargamers, who you'd expect to at least have a basic grounding in it. Such as this not being the go-to reference for a "ranger":



This was a period woodcutting backing up a folk tale about a historical figure.

Quote from: Kiero;1034857The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how little historical/folk references seem to impact D&D. Even when some of the founders were wargamers, who you'd expect to at least have a basic grounding in it. Such as this not being the go-to reference for a "ranger":



This was a period woodcutting backing up a folk tale about a historical figure.

Yeah, but that's not actually Medieval*; Its David "Davy" Crockett (the image's name is 'david-crockett-6.jpg'). People don't think of 19th Century Tennessee and the Battle of the Alamo as particularly being a part of the medieval period... which is probably why it doesn't come up in relation to D&D.

This isn't to say the early Colonial period wouldn't make a fantastic basis for a D&D setting (the low population density with a few points of civilization in a vast, dangerous and largely unexplored wilderness; yet possessing technology far more advanced than the local population could produce makes a lot of sense if your default setting is a region of new colonies on a new frontier; you just need some ancient fallen civilizations who once resided in the region to fill it with dungeons and lost treasures and you're good to go).

It just means that the reason why that particular piece of art isn't the go-to for a medieval ranger is that the picture is depicting events from more than four centuries after the Medieval period ended and that the "period" artistic depiction; which is almost certainly NOT a woodcut, but a plate for a printed book; probably dates no earlier than the 1820's; its probably closer to five centuries after the fact).

* Other than the name, the biggest "tell" that its not Medieval is the use of perspective and shadow in the drawing, which didn't get figured out until the Renaissance. The fringe on the breeches are also distinct to the American Frontier as the design was adopted by trappers and explorers from the Native American tribes in the region.

Quote from: Chris24601;1034869Yeah, but that's not actually Medieval*; Its David "Davy" Crockett. People don't think of 19th Century Tennessee and the Battle of the Alamo as particularly being a part of the medieval period... which is probably why it doesn't come up in relation to D&D.

This isn't to say the early Colonial period wouldn't make a fantastic basis for a D&D setting (the low population density with a few points of civilization in a vast, dangerous and largely unexplored wilderness; yet possessing technology far more advanced than the local population could produce makes a lot of sense if your default setting is a region of new colonies on a new frontier (you just need some ancient fallen civilizations who once resided in the region to fill it with dungeons and lost treasures and you're good to go).

It just means that the reason why that particular piece of art isn't the go-to for a medieval ranger is that the picture is depicting events from more than four centuries after the Medieval period ended and that the "period" artistic depiction; which is almost certainly NOT a woodcut, but a plate for a printed book; probably dates no earlier than the 1820's; its probably closer to five centuries after the fact).

* The biggest "tell" that its not Medieval is the use of perspective and shadow in the drawing, which didn't get figured out until the Renaissance. The fringe on the breeches are also distinct to the American Frontier as the design was adopted by trappers and explorers from the Native American tribes in the region.

America doesn't have any medieval history of it's own (at least European-derived Americans don't, obviously Native Americans do), but my point was that you see elements of colonial history in some of the assumptions of how a setting should play. As you point out, a lot of those line up quite easily with the Colonial period, even while they make no sense for a historical medieval Europe (which was densely populated and well-travelled in many parts). You even have "lost civilisations" with places like Cahokia, or else the collapse of Central American civilisations.

What's strange to me is that their own history features so little when it's so readily available and full of use-able bits.

Quote from: Chris24601;1034845The massive perception that Tolkien was the primary source for D&D I think has as more to do with 3rd Edition deliberately aping the artistic style of "The Lord of the Rings" films because they coincided with the release of 3e and by the time 3.5e hit in 2003 the film trilogy was fully codified as that generation's "Star Wars" and D&D's artwork has never looked back (ex. 3.5 was where the default elves starting going from the short Peter Pan looking fellows to the tall and regal versions of Tolkien). The result has been that a lot of the stuff in D&D that makes perfect sense in the context of a world like the one presented by Vance doesn't feel like a logical fit with the setting of a more Tolkien-esque world.

That perception goes all the way back to when Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings were PC races, ie. decades before 3rd.  AD&D not only had Halflings, but three types of Halflings (which matched Tolkien's three types exactly), Elves were broken up into High Elves, Wood Elves, etc., Dwarves were basically the same.  You can argue similar ancestry for the dwarves, but you're never gonna shake the charge of Tolkien influence as long as you have small, fat, English peasants running around.

If anything, 3e tried to get away from that with their slender, criminal Kenderlings.

Quote from: Kiero;1034857The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how little historical/folk references seem to impact D&D. Even when some of the founders were wargamers, who you'd expect to at least have a basic grounding in it. Such as this not being the go-to reference for a "ranger":

This was a period woodcutting backing up a folk tale about a historical figure.

Quote from: Kiero;1034871America doesn't have any medieval history of it's own (at least European-derived Americans don't, obviously Native Americans do), but my point was that you see elements of colonial history in some of the assumptions of how a setting should play. As you point out, a lot of those line up quite easily with the Colonial period, even while they make no sense for a historical medieval Europe (which was densely populated and well-travelled in many parts). You even have "lost civilisations" with places like Cahokia, or else the collapse of Central American civilisations.

What's strange to me is that their own history features so little when it's so readily available and full of use-able bits.

Can you perhaps expand on this. I'm really not sure what your overall point is. As an American, I can say that I think* it I were inventing modern roleplaying games for the first time as an American in the 70s, and I were making it a swords&sorcery fantasy-enhanced version of medieval wargaming, I probably would have done very similar to what they did--made it in vaguely non-descript pseudo-Europe, an borrowing the vague-frontier aspects that they did. If I were to want to make something vaguely tied to early European American settlement or anything Native American-related, I'd probably make it into an 16-18th-century expansion for Boot Hill or the like.
*because of course I can't know

Quote from: Kiero;1034871America doesn't have any medieval history of it's own (at least European-derived Americans don't, obviously Native Americans do)

No, you've got it backward. European-derived Americans have roots in medieval history. Native Americans do not.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1034881Can you perhaps expand on this. I'm really not sure what your overall point is. As an American, I can say that I think* it I were inventing modern roleplaying games for the first time as an American in the 70s, and I were making it a swords&sorcery fantasy-enhanced version of medieval wargaming, I probably would have done very similar to what they did--made it in vaguely non-descript pseudo-Europe, an borrowing the vague-frontier aspects that they did. If I were to want to make something vaguely tied to early European American settlement or anything Native American-related, I'd probably make it into an 16-18th-century expansion for Boot Hill or the like.
*because of course I can't know

Especially after reading a lot of the S&S literature available at the time.

Quote from: Chris24601;1034405Not really. I just like logically coherent worlds.

If you want authentic medieval then magic needs to either be so rare (one-in-a-million) and/or subtle (akin to Coincidental Magic in Mage the Ascension... was it really magic or was it just fortuitous circumstance) as to not disrupt the non-magical social order.

It doesn't, though. In my world, magic is rare. I go by the old AD&D guidelines where only 1:100 people are capable of a class and level, and the great majority of those are fighters, followed by thieves, followed by clerics, followed by wizards. So maybe 1:1000 people are capable of being a wizard. I also follow the rule of thumb that only a fraction of levelled characters progress to each subsequent level. So there's one level 2 wizard for every 5000 people, one level 3 wizard for every 10,000 people, etc.

More importantly, the people drawn to become levelled NPCs are not normal. They're eccentric. Driven by extreme ambitions. They have their own peculiar agendas. The notion that spell-casting NPCs would be put to work building castles is a huge assumption that doesn't carry any weight in my campaigns. For starters, doing that stuff gives them no XP. Only venturing into haunted ruins and terrible lairs increases their power. So you have to be someone driven to explore haunted ruins and terrible lairs to be higher than 1st level.  The attrition rate for such activities is brutal. Of the ones who do survive a few levels, most retire to their towers and libraries to study the objects of their obsession. If any noble comes around telling them to use their arcane powers to devise public streetlights, or make tilling fields more efficient, the wizard will tell him to fuck right off.

Clerics are similar. Most priests have no levels - they're religious functionaries or lay priests. A few are touched by divinity. Their god has plans for them, plans that don't involve curing hunger or turning temples into medical clinics. If any benign deity tried to overturn the natural balance that way, the gods would war with one another. Death is as natural as life, fire as natural as wheat. Meddling in human affairs to that extent is a huge no-no for the gods, as almost every myth makes clear. No, clerics are blessed by their gods to go to dangerous places and do special things, not hang around towns curing broken ankles and gout. Abusing those divine blessings by yoking them to mundane tasks would surely rouse the anger of the sponsoring god.

Quote from: Haffrung;1034895If any noble comes around telling them to use their arcane powers to devise public streetlights, or make tilling fields more efficient, the wizard will tell him to fuck right off.

Also, the notion of "the wizard lives in a lonely tower far off in the desolate wilderness" is an old trope in folklore, LONG predating RPGs.  This is one reason why.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1034879if anything, 3e tried to get away from that with their slender, criminal Kenderlings.

Slight correction:  The 'criminal Kenderlings' was a player perception, and an amazing amount of local vitriol. Simply because quite frankly, people didn't like the change, they liked their roly-poly non-adventuring homebodies.  I personally liked the change, because I have a hard time seeing fat Hobbits going adventuring when they haven't been given an 'adventure coupon'.

The 3e Halfling are River folks, with some fantasy Gypsy, but mostly community oriented.  They have better than average luck and agility, but that's always been there.

Quote from: Haffrung;1034895It doesn't, though. Proceeds to show how, in a coherent medieval setting, spellcasters with any level of ability are both extremely rare and that those with any level of ability don't interact with the mundane world much at all.

I'm not sure why you think your examples disprove my point. If anything you've supported it... a truly authentic medieval setting only lasts if the PC spellcasters are both rare and have reasons to stay out of the way of mundane affairs (i.e. rare and subtle)

Note: Secret warriors who use skill and magic to battle against extradimensional incursions of monsters/dungeons into the mortal world while keeping the knowledge of their existence secret from the mundane Medieval world would also be a FANTASTIC concept to build a coherent D&D setting off.

Edited to Add: Actually, if you take that premise and the Colonial era setting and slap them together you get the Witch Hunter RPG by Paradigm Concepts.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1034907Slight correction:  The 'criminal Kenderlings' was a player perception, and an amazing amount of local vitriol. Simply because quite frankly, people didn't like the change, they liked their roly-poly non-adventuring homebodies.  I personally liked the change, because I have a hard time seeing fat Hobbits going adventuring when they haven't been given an 'adventure coupon'.

The 3e Halfling are River folks, with some fantasy Gypsy, but mostly community oriented.  They have better than average luck and agility, but that's always been there.

This is pretty much true, 3e Halflings are not Kender*. They are slender Halflings with favored class: rogue and themes of travel and adventuresomeness being added to explain why [strike]Hobbits[/strike]Halfling not pushed out the door by [strike]Maiar[/strike]Wizards or [strike]Wraiths[/strike]Wraiths somehow end up camping next to dungeons searching for fame and fortune instead of doing everything ascribed to their personality and goals.
*although I have to say fantasy Gypsy+thief has enough parallels to Kender that I understand the logic.

I also think part of the problem is that everyone still thinks that the Fighter is the 'everyman' class, not the Rogue/Thief.  Most don't realize the amount of training needed to be good with a wide array of weapons and armour, whereas the thief type skills can be picked up as you go along.  If you're lucky to not get caught.  To be a thief/rogue no one needs to be really taught.  To use a sword properly while in armour?  Years.

Quote from: Chris24601;1034909Note: Secret warriors who use skill and magic to battle against extradimensional incursions of monsters/dungeons into the mortal world while keeping the knowledge of their existence secret from the mundane Medieval world would also be a FANTASTIC concept to build a coherent D&D setting off.

It's also been the near-default since day 1.  There were elements of that in Greyhawk, and in virtually every referee-created world since 1972.