Quote from: Larsdangly;1013059I'm not sure I follow where that expert opinion is coming from. Whatever may or may not have been going on in England specifically, the bottom line is that gunpowder weapons were widely manufactured and used in late 15th century and early 16th century europe.

I don't know how much L&D is realistic, how much fantasy, and thus what if any guns it has. I don't even know yet if a visiting Hungarian knight could show up. I just wrote about the situation around the Ottomans where guns were actually really used historically and the Hungarian army was among the first to buy en masse. I don't think that during the time of the WotR (1455 -1487) in the region (Britannia) guns were widely manufactured or used. This era overlaps my speciality in history, the life and reign of Matthias Corvinus (23 February 1443 - 6 April 1490) who was King of Hungary between 1458 - 1490, one of the greatest rulers of the nation and in Europe at the time, who for a while conquered most of Austria and made Vienna the capital, known as Matthias the Just, or the Renaissance King, or the King of Darkness (due to commanding the Black Army)

Spoiler

I quite like the part about infections. When you read history, people, even emperors, die all the time from infections and illness. Having that matter feels like would add a lot to this sort of setting.

I forget who it was, I think Pundit reviewing the game Zweihander, but one thing that sticks to my mind is how much the review lambasted it for basically making the players be nothing but miserable peasants who do nothing because of social class. But social class is a big part of this game too. How does L&D avoid being like Zweihander, that is, having people handicapped into not really being able to do anything because of lack of social class? Or is there supposed to be a fun part in that somewhere?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013072I forget who it was, I think Pundit reviewing the game Zweihander, but one thing that sticks to my mind is how much the review lambasted it for basically making the players be nothing but miserable peasants who do nothing because of social class. But social class is a big part of this game too. How does L&D avoid being like Zweihander, that is, having people handicapped into not really being able to do anything because of lack of social class? Or is there supposed to be a fun part in that somewhere?

I can see the adventure in starting as a peasant who gets drafted into the army then does something 'heroic' and is granted a minor noble title, only to then being the black sheep among nobles who gets insulted for not being a proper noble, and how such a noble-peasant could try to set up his own little land and dynasty.

That however would be a dynastic game for multiple generations of family to grow and prosper, while I assume L&D is also just a single generation rpg

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013072I forget who it was, I think Pundit reviewing the game Zweihander, but one thing that sticks to my mind is how much the review lambasted it for basically making the players be nothing but miserable peasants who do nothing because of social class. But social class is a big part of this game too. How does L&D avoid being like Zweihander, that is, having people handicapped into not really being able to do anything because of lack of social class? Or is there supposed to be a fun part in that somewhere?

That's an issue with almost all historically medieval based games.  One thing we see in history is that the social order was maintained often by excessive forced meaning that the only people you can play were the nobility and they had their own social rules they had to keep, meaning adventuring in any classical sense was non-existent.

Which confuses me all the time when people claim they want to play in some sort of historically based game and expect to somehow 'fit in'.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013072I forget who it was, I think Pundit reviewing the game Zweihander, but one thing that sticks to my mind is how much the review lambasted it for basically making the players be nothing but miserable peasants who do nothing because of social class. But social class is a big part of this game too. How does L&D avoid being like Zweihander, that is, having people handicapped into not really being able to do anything because of lack of social class? Or is there supposed to be a fun part in that somewhere?

Well that’s not entirely true about social class. Reading Zweihander, it says that players were dirt-shoveling peasant types, but fate leads them to a different outcome (eg you are an adventurer now and not an NPC). Social class only impacts difficulty rating of interactions b/c people of diff social classes have different levels of education and mannerisms.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1013080That's an issue with almost all historically medieval based games.  One thing we see in history is that the social order was maintained often by excessive forced meaning that the only people you can play were the nobility and they had their own social rules they had to keep, meaning adventuring in any classical sense was non-existent.

Which confuses me all the time when people claim they want to play in some sort of historically based game and expect to somehow 'fit in'.

It can happen, but late medieval era is not the ideal time for changing social status, the time after the fall of West Rome would fit better for it. Various clans move around to resettle, raiders take loot and wives, the strong or charismatic, or clever ones can get rich and/or leader position, the adventuring to britannia by other Europeans starts up, the Frisians attempt to hold their realm together, mercenaries can (and sometimes do) topple their lords to declare creation of new realms.

If you make this just a tiny bit fantasy, let's say low fantasy and allow Druids to still hide in places one could play a Breton celt trying to restore the old faith, or a simple peasant who got fed up by taxes and allies with foreign raiders to kill a tyrant, even women in some places have better position like among the Picts, could be warriors or whatever. Same for the Norse although they aren't important for a couple more centuries. (but at the same time you might also be one of the rare few Scythian/Alan mercenary descendants whom followed the Romans to England)

More or less Brytenwalda setting.

I don't know how L&D deals with this, but there are games that provide a quasi-realistic social structure but give the players some freedom to sample various character types. Perhaps the best example is Flashing Blades, where you can just choose to be a noble if that is what you want to be. There are some asymmetries to being a noble vs. a soldier or common pirate or something, but it all seems to work out in the wash and experienced players are happy to play different kinds of characters.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1013092I don't know how L&D deals with this, but there are games that provide a quasi-realistic social structure but give the players some freedom to sample various character types. Perhaps the best example is Flashing Blades, where you can just choose to be a noble if that is what you want to be. There are some asymmetries to being a noble vs. a soldier or common pirate or something, but it all seems to work out in the wash and experienced players are happy to play different kinds of characters.

Which covers an era that has a lot more personal freedom, where there's a burgeoning middle class.  But in the era of 900 to 1400 AD, there's a strict hierarchy that will not be broken.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1013097Which covers an era that has a lot more personal freedom, where there's a burgeoning middle class.  But in the era of 900 to 1400 AD, there's a strict hierarchy that will not be broken.

I wouldn't say "will not be broken", but it is very, very unlikely and hard to do. Those who do it are mostly like from my previous example, male soldiers of an army who manage to get the attention of nobility/royalty to be elevated in standing.

In medieval Hungary it was easier to be elevated to nobility and usually meant the elevation of the whole family or (weird for western customs) elevating a whole regiment of soldiers who then shared the same noble coat of arms. Still, it was pretty much unheard of to have anyone else than soldiers (or a noble's bastard) be granted nobility.

Falling of course is easier than rising in status, so noble families turning into merchants or worse was more likely.

Don't get me wrong, the book looks amazing and I'm getting it. I am just wondering how to square this circle since it will be an issue when running adventures.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013107Don't get me wrong, the book looks amazing and I'm getting it. I am just wondering how to square this circle since it will be an issue when running adventures.

Actually, I'm with you.

I guess my other question is, what's so great about medieval authentic fantasy anyway. What makes it better than normal fantasy D&D? Or rather, what draws you to it.

It interests me from a "purist" point of view, but that doesn't mean it'd be fun to play for one.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013112I guess my other question is, what's so great about medieval authentic fantasy anyway. What makes it better than normal fantasy D&D? Or rather, what draws you to it.

It interests me from a "purist" point of view, but that doesn't mean it'd be fun to play for one.

I can't speak for others but I personally love history and games that let you change history. Example in video games would be almost everything Paradox released (strategy), or Expeditions: Viking (RPG)

For those who have L&D: what makes this better than Harn, Lamentations of the Flame Princess or Zweihander?