No, I haven't gone insane. Yes, I realize that's a very odd question, but I think it's a question worth exploring.
When Dungeons & Dragons was released in 1974, it billed itself as "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns." Gary Gygax elaborates a bit on this matter in his foreword, when he talks about the Castle and Crusade Society, the chapter of the International Federation of Wargaming formed by himself and Rob Kuntz in 1970. Among other things, the C&C Society served as a testbed for the miniatures rules that would eventually become Chainmail, itself one of the foundations on which the published version of D&D was built. He adds:
While the C&C Society is no longer, its spirit lives on, and we believe that all wargamers who are interested in the medieval, not just fantasy buffs, will enjoy playing DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.
So, at the start, Gygax in some way saw D&D as a "medieval" game, though precisely what "medieval" means is unclear. Looking at Chainmail, one sees that "medieval" covers a very broad swath of history, since the troop types include Saxons (6th–9th centuries), Normans (10th–15th centuries), Landsknechts (15th–17th centuries), and Condottiere (14th–17th centuries), among many others. Further, it's worth noting that Gygax quickly concedes that D&D "need not be restricted to the medieval," but, in so conceding, he is implying that "fantastic-medieval wargame play" is normative, or at least expected.
The rules of OD&D themselves provide few clues as to what "medieval" means, since their details are both vague and inclusive. One could look at its list of "basic equipment" and attempt to draw historical conclusions, I suppose. The presence of, for example, plate mail armor might imply a late medieval (15th century) setting, but it's far from certain. In the discussion of clerics, there's a reference to "Turcopole-type" horsed crossbowmen that might imply a different time period (11th–12th centuries), that of the early Crusades. Again, though, it's far from definitive and one might well say it's evidence of the fruitlessness of this line of questioning.
I'm sympathetic to that point of view, if only because I don't think that Gygax ever intended Dungeons & Dragons to be a historical simulation. "These rules are strictly fantasy," he famously explained and all his most explicit references to the game's inspirations are works of fantasy literature, not history texts. Given that, what's the point of this exercise? For me, the point is simply gaining a better understanding of the original game's unstated assumptions so as to understand OD&D better. My intention is not to limit the scope of what's acceptable – something Gygax himself rejected, as noted above – but rather to see if there's anything we can learn about the game's characteristics and idiosyncrasies that might be rooted in its tacit historical antecedents.
I remember thinking, upon reading Gygax's last published works, particularly those related to Castle Zagyg, that he had begun to embrace a very late medieval or even early modern vision of fantasy gaming. This made sense on multiple levels, given both his well-known fascination with exotic polearms, many of which did not appear on the scene until the late Middle Ages, and the fact that "adventuring" as an occupation is more plausible in a post-medieval world filled with rootless freemen and mercenaries. In fact, I have a recollection of Gygax's having admitted, in one of his many Q&A threads, that, were he to have written D&D at a later time rather than in the early 1970s, he'd have drawn more heavily from early modern history rather than the medieval. Unfortunately, I can't find the quote and might well have imagined it.
Regardless, I think there's value in pondering the extent to which Dungeons & Dragons (and fantasy RPGs more generally) are in any sense "medieval" and what, if anything, that means for the worlds in which they are set.
Judging by the descriptions of plate mail, field plate, and full plate armor in the AD&D DMG & UA I can safely state that Gygax & Co. believed that that "plate mail" is what was used in the mid-to-late 14th C. Western Europe, "field plate" in the early-to-mid 15th C., and "full plate" in mid-15th C. onwards. There is an article I read somewhere wherein Gygax speaks glowingly of 15th & 16th C. mercenary companies. And if you look at his Living Fantasy books, it appears that in later years, he preferred an even later technology (e.g. tall ships & cobblestones) of the 18th C. but without the gunpowder.
ReplyDeleteBy the description of equipment, troop types and social hierarchies in AD&D I always thought of D&D as late middle-ages early renaissance.
ReplyDeleteGreyhawk itself seems to portray such a world, with the exclusion of a handful of nations and nomad or barbarian tribes.
I think in a very real sense Gygax was inspired by REH's Hyborian Age, which saw a mix of various historical cultures from various times and places. For example, Shem is clearly a Biblical-era version of Israel, while Aquilonia is more akin to 14th century France. Having those sorts of cultures side-by-side might be a model for the sort of setting Gygax had in mind. I wonder if he had a copy of "Setting up a Wargames Campaign" by Tony Bath? That covered exactly that sort of campaign, in REH's Hyborea.
ReplyDeleteI think you're definitely on to something here. While I don't believe Gygax ever mentioned Tony Bath, he would certainly have been aware of his Hyborian Age campaign. Even if, by some stretch, he wasn't, he was certainly familiar with and inspired by REH.
Delete"I remember thinking, upon reading Gygax's last published works, particularly those related to Castle Zagyg, that he had begun to embrace a very late medieval or even early modern vision of fantasy gaming."
ReplyDeleteI remember when I ran a Yggsburgh campaign, my primary inspiration was Moll Flanders, Sense & Sensibility, that kind of 18th & early 19th century fiction!
The 1983 D&D Expert Set (written by Frank Mentzer, but in close coordination with Gary Gygax) says "the historical setting upon which D&D games are based is 15th century Europe, before the invention of the printing press" with a further note that gunpowder is excluded. I've always pretty much gone with that, but with the understanding that it's an anachronistic 15th century where some things that were invented later in our history are present there, so long as they don't depend on gunpowder, steam power, electricity, internal combustion, etc. (all of which don't function (or at least not reliably) in "D&D world").
ReplyDeleteI also follow Gygax's conception that D&D World is parallel to our own present-day world, and high-level wizards and adventurer-types are likely to have at least some knowledge of it, if not direct first-hand experience of it. So even though technology is generally frozen at the 15th century (and has been frozen there for a long time) attitudes, at least among the urban class and adventurer-types, are much more cosmopolitan than in that historical period.
I wasn't much of a fan of Gygax's efforts in his later years to push things further ahead to a more 17th-18th century feel with brick buildings, cobblestone streets, powdered wigs, commercial coach-lines, widespread tobacco use, and so on. That's not what "fantasy world" looks like in my imagination.
Thank you for the Mentzer quote. That's a good one and I'd forgotten it.
DeleteAha. I was about to comment that I read long ago (in a letter to Dragon, I think) that the AD&D line was generally medieval while the D&D line was specifically 15th century, but I had no idea where the letter writer had gotten that idea. I suppose it must be from that Mentzer quotation. (I had Moldvay/Cook for B/X, supplmented by CMI when they came out, so I never actually had the book that quotation is in.)
DeleteJames, twould be interesting to hear, some time, about which, if any, aspects of your own medievalist training you have used in your gaming. For me, it’s been 1) palaeography and codicology, 2) folklore and legends, and 3) aspects of “heroic” literature. But it’s always a mixed and anachronistic bag. Lots of other good stuff sieves out.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like a worthy topic for a post someday. Off the top of my head, I'd say the aspects I've used the most are 1) paleography, 2) history (naturally), 3) law, both civil and ecclesiastical, and 4) philosophy and theology.
DeleteI would like to point out that the medieval period is simply the period between the classic age, and the modern. so after the fall of rome (476) and before Columbus (1492). Historians do quibble over the dates, mildly, but that is the accepted range.
ReplyDeleteThat does indeed cover a large period, technology wise. but still falls into medieval.
I suppose my interest is that, as you say, it's a large period, not just technology-wise but also socially. The world of 800 and 1200, though separated by only 400 years, are very different from one another, much more so than a similarly long period of time in Antiquity (cue a classical scholar taking me to task).
DeleteI notice that I prefer a very Anglo-saxon period, ala Skyrim, but many of my players like chivalry era. and of course, this is very europe-centric. that same era in china is very very different, both technology/socially, and flavour
DeleteI vacillate in my own tastes, preferring a more early medieval feel (pre-Charlemagne) at times and then changing my mind and wanting the High Middle Ages with all that comes with it.
DeleteAll that matters is that a) people have fun and b) have a vague idea what to expect
DeleteVery true!
DeleteI'm with Greyhawk Grognard, above, on Gary basing Greyhawk and his general vision of the level of technology and society primarily on the example set by Howard's Hyborian World, which has everything from stone-age "savages" (Picts) to high medieval/early renaissance Hyborians with knights and armor, and Buccaneer Era Caribbean Zingaran pirates and privateers. A fine mix of cultures and technologies.
ReplyDeleteAlso we must consider the "Frontier/Wild West" spirit that was definitely there in a lot of the social arrangements; most social settings in his writings are more like out of a Western than anything even remotely medieval. Serfs are hardly ever mentioned; non-nobles walk around in armor and with swords like gunslingers rather than knights; and taverns and inns are more like saloons than anything ever seen in real-world Medieval history.
There was also the influence of Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar on the city of Greyhawk, a kind of city that would have been out of place in a proper Medieval milieu; as his later works show, he was also heavily influenced by London, especially Dickensian London.
Finally, there was the Dying Earth influence of Jack Vance's work. There were science-fantasy remnants in Greyhawk and other parts of his work, with long-lost ancient civilizations that clearly had a higher magical/technological level than was common to the campaign era. So tech levels being a mish-mash, even in close proximity, is not at all unusual (the Rovers of the Barrens hold the same place in this respect to the Oeridian kingdoms of Greyhawk as the Picts did to the Aquilonians of Hyboria).
I've always taken that 15th century quote of Mentzer's as the baseline. Though I think when I read it as a kid I thought it meant the 1500s! Somewhere between 1450-1550, sans gunpowder of course, really lets you plausibly shoehorn just about anything into your game.
ReplyDeleteWhen does D&D take place?
ReplyDeleteNehwon.
"Medieval" can indeed mean many different things. Histrocially, of course, the (European) Middle Ages are situated between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Renaissance. That is a 1000-year period ;-)
ReplyDeleteIf you look at it from a wargaming perspective, the "Ancient and Medieval period" is often covered within the same ruleset. Look at WRG 70s rules, or their later DBx reincarnations. The rationale being that warfare didn't much before the invention of the personal firearm. Wargaming books from the late 60s, early 70s (Featherstone, Grant, ...) also cover the medieval period often as one period together with Ancients. It's not a coincidence that many of the inspirations for Bath's Hyboria campaign were Ancients and Medieval thrown together.
From a literary point of view, I do think however that many of the medieval aspects of D&D are inspired by a 19th century romantic view on the middle ages. This is the period that gave us many of the fictionalized medieval stories we know today (Robin Hood, Ivanhoe, ...). Although such stories and their adaptations for the silver screen have influenced how we view the middle ages, I think historians will likely disagree with that view being historically accurate. Such stories are often based on the chivalric (late) middle ages, with a view on e.g. knighthood that is very distorted.
Another issue I've often wondered about is SCA influence. SCA also propagates an idealized view of the middle ages (as far as I can tell, never been a member). I don't think it's a coincidence SCA is rather unknown in Europe, the continent where the real (Eur) middle ages actually happened. When you live in a country that still has remnants of the real middle ages - whether castle ruins, early city lay-outs, even still some political and other boundaries (language, ...) - your view is very different. The middle ages are a real history period, not a fictional one, that have really shaped European history.
Then there is Prince Valiant, perhaps the most well-known medieval graphical novel (esp in the USA). It also spans a wild array of periods, often mixing elements of different periods. People re fighting the Vikings, but dressed on 15th century costumes etc. Not exactly an accurate global view.
So I think D&D is set in this mix of what I would call literary medieval influences, and is not as such influenced by real medieval history, let alone set in an actual historical period within the middle ages.
If you look at the D&D world as imagined by Gygax, it's pretty clear he didn't know a lot about the actual medieval period. And it's not just on the level of military equipment & technology. So it's pointless to look for the actual period, there wasn't any initially, and when they settled on 15th century, it was probably simply as the last moment before modern innovations like printing & gunpowder came into use.
ReplyDeleteI think you have to factor in the founder's effect of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. While the Greyhawk campaign wasn't a clone of Blackmoor, from the various accounts my opinion is that Blackmoor established some of the boundaries.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically that the setting is centered on what hobbyists thought what was the medieval era. Which the Chainmail rules are a representative of. Combined with a potpourri of different fantasy elements floating around circa 1970 like Jason and Argonaunts, Hammer and Universal Horror, Howard's Hyboria.
Because Blackmoor and Greyhawk were potpourri they shared some commonalities but were distinct as well. The crucial common element was the widespread use of Medieval elements which was initially set by Dave Arneson when he started Blackmoor up.
But it was never intended to be a historical setting although I am sure specific historical points entered at times when specific elements were debated among the two referees (Arneson and Gygax) and the players.
If you are looking for what "Age" Gygax was thinking of for D&D, I'd suggest hunting in gaming shops for a book called "Living Fantasy" released by TLG in the Gygax Fantasy Worlds series. It's out of print now, but you may find one available at a gaming store.
ReplyDeleteThis one is a complete treatise on how Gary envisioned the society would be around -- things like technology, and the social structure and government styles of the Quasi-European society. It touches upon things he started pondering on in Later AD&D, then took to Mythus and LA/LE afterwards, as well as Castle Zagyg. If you're interested in what his thought process was, this has it. He wrote this a few years before he wrote the Yggsburg manuscript, so if you're looking for how he thought, I'd try to grab this one up.
Cole Long, who people may remember from G+ or the World of Alshain blog, once commented that AD&D occurs during "the reign of Richard IV" from the first season of Blackadder as a way to sum up the late medieval with anachronisms fantasy time and the emphasis on the dangers of illpreserved meat and loose women.
ReplyDeletePersonally I always thought that OD&D has a lot more in common with the Wild West of the movies of the time. [Even to the extent of having a wandering Chinese monk passing through.] Having a back East (or South in Blackmoor) helped serve as a dump for the resources extracted from the frontier, and as a source of settlers and manufactured goods. Hence the emphasis on merchants rather than craftsmen, for example (despite an absence of trade). Isolated towns surrounded by hostile baddies. Adventurers as gunslingers coming into town, solving the problems, and leaving. Terra nullius, free for the taking so you can build an independent stronghold on it.
ReplyDeleteNo mention of kings or fealty and feudal contracts. All the important political stuff is extremely noticeable by it's absence Which is why Ed and Wilf wrote a version of D&D that corrected this and introduced a lot of medievalism into the game (aolthough while initially intending to, they then didn't offer it to Gary when they saw how Gary treated people at a con).
And yes, technologically D&D is pretty much post-medieval. Including the absent AC1 column from Chainmail - late period jousting armour [which is why there is no AC0 since shields were no longer useful in this grade of armour], wide availability of steel weapon and armour. On the other hand it is easy to convert to other time periods. After all a heavily armoured Greek hero (in really expensive bronze armour) is really no different from the Armoured cavalry of the fighting man (the ability to wear armour is such a central concept of the class that restricting the ability to do so harms the class immensely).
On the "turcopole" question, I think that can't be a serious use of the term. Mounted crossbowmen were employed as late as Marignano in 1515 to my knowledge; they were also present at Cerignola in 1503, which I believe was the first massed use of the arquebus. So if your Western European fantasy has cannons aboard ship and present on the battlefield, but no personal firearms, you're probably safe with the 1490s or so. If you don't want shipboard cannons present, you have to go back before Arnemuiden in 1338; at that point the equipment list doesn't really approximate to anything historical.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that D&D is the origin of the fantasy trope that the fictional world has no stated relation to the real world, as opposed to the older convention that it's usually said to be Earth in the far past, inside the hollow Earth, on another planet etc.
ReplyDeleteI was recently looking at the Rules Cyclopedia which specifically mentions 15th century as the assumed time period equivalent, and while that is a much later work it may be the result of TSR people asking the same question. It might also be something that was printed in the earlier D&D works (Mentzer?) which it drew from.
ReplyDeleteOne option I consider probable is it's post-apocalyptic or far future on another planet; the former more likely given that early Greyhawk looks a lot like North America.
ReplyDeleteThe arms and armor are a mish-mash because it's reenactment and reinvention, after whatever happened to make magic rise, technology fall.
Some capitalized entries from AD&D DMG Appendix N:
Sterling Lanier's HIERO'S JOURNEY, post-apoc New England, with magic-like powers.
Roger Zelazny's JACK OF SHADOWS, far-future world split between magic and technology. Though here I'd say "Lord of Light" is more accurate: Faux-mideastern fantasy setting set on another planet with technologists passing as Hindu gods.
Fred Saberhagen's CHANGELING EARTH, 50,000 AD with magic and dead science.
Jack Vance's DYING EARTH.
There's others which are pure fantasy, often "Earth in prehistory" or secondary worlds, but the pattern fits a lot of Greyhawk, and even more Blackmoor.
yes.
Delete