TheRPGSite

The mood that you're in now, or the time period you prefer from those two options generally when fantasy or historical gaming.

For Fantasy Gaming in general I think Dark Ages, then Medieval, then Renaissance.  The less civilized and technological (which in fantasy means wizard guilds, etc.) it is, the more likely acceptable sandbox adventuring becomes.

For Historical Gaming I think Renaissance might allow for more flexibility in character creation, where Medieval seems hard to remove from Feudalism, which is going to highly limit your options.

Quote from: CRKrueger;934275For Fantasy Gaming in general I think Dark Ages, then Medieval, then Renaissance.

How are you defining 'Dark Ages' vs. 'Medieval'? There seems to be some controversy over those terms...

I voted Renaissance... because that seems to best describe the setting of most psuedo-quasi-European fantasy games I've played/ran... what with inns and hired coaches and cities and freedom of movement and books...

I prefer the early middle ages or "dark ages" for heroic flavor, flexibility and as a long time personal historical passion.  It works for fantasy or historical gaming, and it is pretty easy to blur the lines between the two.

From a role-playing perspective, the lack of social flexibility in the historical high middle ages in western Europe is a bit stifling, though it can work on the geographical fringes. Of course in fantasy, that can all change.  In fact, I wonder how many people even think about their fantasy games in historical terms.

The Renaissance era seems to be the default for fantasy.  I'm not sure why.  Perhaps it easier for moderns to relate to an imagined society on the edge of capitalism and technological wonder.  Historically, I would argue that the Renaissance didn't even exist as an era, even though it has long been a part of the western narrative.  It was, I think, essentially an artistic movement that was limited to a small number of elites in Norther Italy.  The vast majority of Europeans were completely oblivious that they were living in a new enlightened era of humanism.  The plague, the expansion of trade, and later the Reformation, had much more to with the breakdown of feudal society than Renaissance thinking did.

Quote from: Simlasa;934285How are you defining 'Dark Ages' vs. 'Medieval'? There seems to be some controversy over those terms...

The boundaries between these era's are fuzzy, as far as historians are concerned.  There are no convenient dramatic events to separate them.  The "early medieval" or "post-antique" labels are generally used to describe the period between the fall of the western Roman Empire and the development of feudalism - but that gets difficult because feudalism is not easy to define.  It varies from region to region, changes over time within the same region, and some areas never really feudalized at all.  Charlemagne's empire might be a good period marker for parts of France, but don't make sense for Britain, etc.

The term "Dark Ages" has fallen out of use, in professional circles. Originally, it was used to describe the era where we supposedly had few records, between ancient Rome and the Renaissance (or there about), as though that era is "dark" or "un-lit" to us. It was meant to be slightly derogatory, coined in an era when you didn't need to be too PC, or concerned with cultural relativism. The term is, in fact, inaccurate as we have more records from the "dark ages" - by a long shot - than we do from the Roman Empire or Republic.  I still like it as term though - 'cause it sounds cool.

Quote from: Simlasa;934285How are you defining 'Dark Ages' vs. 'Medieval'? There seems to be some controversy over those terms...

More 400-800 than 900-1400.

Neither, I'm thoroughly sick of feudal tropes. I'd rather before (antiquity) or after (Enlightenment).

Actually, I like both the time before (early Iron Age to late Roman) and after (Age of Revolution) better. If restricted to the two options presented, I'd choose Renaissance.

When running a game, I do not pay enough historical fidelity to make it all that distinguishable.

A lot of what people think of as Medieval are more Renaissance (from the clothes to the armor to the architecture etc. etc.) so it just confuses a lot of people if you try to do High Middle Ages as the High Middle Ages. Right now I'm feeling like the twilight of the Antiquity more than anything. Something more romantic about people trying hold onto the last sparks of the old order than people digging through its rubble.

Quote from: Madprofessor;934292The boundaries between these era's are fuzzy, as far as historians are concerned.  There are no convenient dramatic events to separate them.  The "early medieval" or "post-antique" labels are generally used to describe the period between the fall of the western Roman Empire and the development of feudalism - but that gets difficult because feudalism is not easy to define.  It varies from region to region, changes over time within the same region, and some areas never really feudalized at all.  Charlemagne's empire might be a good period marker for parts of France, but don't make sense for Britain, etc.

The term "Dark Ages" has fallen out of use, in professional circles. Originally, it was used to describe the era where we supposedly had few records, between ancient Rome and the Renaissance (or there about), as though that era is "dark" or "un-lit" to us. It was meant to be slightly derogatory, coined in an era when you didn't need to be too PC, or concerned with cultural relativism. The term is, in fact, inaccurate as we have more records from the "dark ages" - by a long shot - than we do from the Roman Empire or Republic.  I still like it as term though - 'cause it sounds cool.

Yeah I like "Dark Ages" for the tone it implies - for me at least, a kind of barbaric medieval, less reading/writing, more basic armour, that sort of thing.

Using wikis/google, seems to me dark ages was originally meant to cover up to about 1400s, but in more recent years tends to cap out at about 1000...?

I am thinking of describing my WIP setting as "late dark ages", hopefully implying to most readers something similar tech wise to around the 900-1000 mark - ah it's a fantasy setting in any event, not a historical one, so creative licence and all that :)

Quote from: Old One Eye;934321When running a game, I do not pay enough historical fidelity to make it all that distinguishable.

this is often me too, to be honest ;)

Romanticized/idealized High Medieval for me ... but then, that's my bailiwick period.

Quote from: CRKrueger;934275For Fantasy Gaming in general I think Dark Ages, then Medieval, then Renaissance.  The less civilized and technological (which in fantasy means wizard guilds, etc.) it is, the more likely acceptable sandbox adventuring becomes.

This, in theory, but my D&D games in  particular tend to be every bit as anachronistic as the Hyborian Age. There's the vaguely Arthurian-flavored High Medieval realm with a strong king, (mostly) loyal vassal lords, knights in full plate doing jousts and shit. There's the Viking-era Scandinavia stand-in. The horse-nomad raiders that combine elements of every horse-nomad raider culture from Kurgans to Huns to Mongols to Seljuk Turks to Tatar Russia. The confederation of mercantile city-states that's mostly inspired by Northern Italy but shares elements with half a dozen other Mediterranean civilizations from Phoenicians to Magna Graecia to Discovery Age Portugal. Turns out "Medieval" is a much bigger umbrella than "Renaissance" ;)

For historical gaming, anything goes.

Quote from: The Butcher;934335This, in theory, but my D&D games in  particular tend to be every bit as anachronistic as the Hyborian Age.

Yeah, I think that was the point of the Hyborian Age, even from Howard's perspective - all of the cool bits of history with none of the restrictions, all thrown together in a homemade stew.  It's kind of a sampler of historical flavors.

Quote from: The Butcher;934335This, in theory, but my D&D games in  particular tend to be every bit as anachronistic as the Hyborian Age. There's the vaguely Arthurian-flavored High Medieval realm with a strong king, (mostly) loyal vassal lords, knights in full plate doing jousts and shit. There's the Viking-era Scandinavia stand-in. The horse-nomad raiders that combine elements of every horse-nomad raider culture from Kurgans to Huns to Mongols to Seljuk Turks to Tatar Russia. The confederation of mercantile city-states that's mostly inspired by Northern Italy but shares elements with half a dozen other Mediterranean civilizations from Phoenicians to Magna Graecia to Discovery Age Portugal. Turns out "Medieval" is a much bigger umbrella than "Renaissance" ;)

For historical gaming, anything goes.

This sounds like the DnD games I know ... blathering the whole thing with a good helping of modern day-isms.

Not such a big fan of the Hyborean effect, especially when it's done in a really jarring way as in "well he just crossed over the border from not-Viking land to not-Egypt land, suddenly there are palm trees and pyramids everywhere and not a beard in sight!" as I've seen in a lot of settings. Would rather just do straight-up history so I don't have to learn a bunch of names for stuff. And it's annoying that it's always the same time periods that get rehashed, never Byzantine Greece or Vasa Sweden.

What approach often works well is to grab two different cultures who have one thing in common, emphasize that and then pick and choose nifty bits from each. For example Byzentine Greeks and early modern Ethiopians (religious focus, cataphracts are badass, as are Ethiopian rock-cut churches) or Koreans and Quechua (mountain focus plus the necrocratic aspects of Quechua politics plus Korean shamanism...).

For a lot of non-human races simply stripping off a lot of the crud that's accumulated onto them to get back to the creepier folkloric origins works well. Get all of the noble savage/Vulcan/hippy treehugging bits off the elves and get back to the creepy assholes in the hollow hills and I'd be happy if I never heard another Scottish dwarf ever again. I like my dwarves grim. The conservative ones wear iron masks and robes so the son never touches their skin and use sign language to communicate with stolen human children who act as interpreters so they never have to speak to non-dwarves.

For ahistorical fantasy I hate hate hate the overpowering surfeit of Victorian anachronisms that come in with Lesserton & Mor or Dolmvay or, I'm given to understand, Pathfinder. I've been favoring anything from ACKS' pseudo-ancients to something Hyperborean, with bits of Harnic realism thrown in.

For pseudo-historical fantasy, most of my knowledge base is around 1500, so Renaissance, although I'm studying up on c 600 Silk Road cultures when I get a chance. I respect LotFP's Enlightenment and think it could be a good time, but most of their adventures don't work for me or my crew.

Neither. I go with Migrations period.

Quote from: Old One Eye;934321When running a game, I do not pay enough historical fidelity to make it all that distinguishable.

I'm running D&D, that's pretty much means what Old One Eye says.

I'm planning a Sandbox Survival Horror campaign with a distinctly Medieval flavor, drawing mainly from the Dark Ages (Sub-Roman Europe) and the Late Middle Ages (The Black Death) when society was falling apart at the seams. So, I'll have to go with Medieval over Renaissance.

The campaign is sort of like Dungeons & Dragons meets The Stand styled like a gory seinen anime.

Quote from: Daztur;934340Not such a big fan of the Hyborean effect, especially when it's done in a really jarring way as in "well he just crossed over the border from not-Viking land to not-Egypt land, suddenly there are palm trees and pyramids everywhere and not a beard in sight!" as I've seen in a lot of settings. Would rather just do straight-up history so I don't have to learn a bunch of names for stuff. And it's annoying that it's always the same time periods that get rehashed, never Byzantine Greece or Vasa Sweden.

I did Byzantine Greece.

I don't run anything pre-Renaissance. :D

Quote from: Old One Eye;934337This sounds like the DnD games I know ... blathering the whole thing with a good helping of modern day-isms.

Quote from: Naburimannu;934353For ahistorical fantasy I hate hate hate the overpowering surfeit of Victorian anachronisms that come in with Lesserton & Mor or Dolmvay or, I'm given to understand, Pathfinder. I've been favoring anything from ACKS' pseudo-ancients to something Hyperborean, with bits of Harnic realism thrown in.

Modern day-isms, no (or at least not if I can help it); Victorian anachronisms, sometimes.

Quote from: Daztur;934340Not such a big fan of the Hyborean effect, especially when it's done in a really jarring way as in "well he just crossed over the border from not-Viking land to not-Egypt land, suddenly there are palm trees and pyramids everywhere and not a beard in sight!" as I've seen in a lot of settings. Would rather just do straight-up history so I don't have to learn a bunch of names for stuff. And it's annoying that it's always the same time periods that get rehashed, never Byzantine Greece or Vasa Sweden.

I played Mystara's Thyatis as Byzantine Greece (figured Thincol was pretty much a mash-up of Conan and Justinian), does that count? ;)

On a more serious note, I understand it's been done to death in published material. But I like it, for the same reason Howard liked it: this way our characters can joust in Mallory's Arthurian Britain today, explore a tomb in Ancient Egypt tomorrow and ride with the Golden Horde next week. Sure, I try to set up reasonable geographical barriers and cultural buffers, but in the end my players don't care all that much.

Quote from: Daztur;934340What approach often works well is to grab two different cultures who have one thing in common, emphasize that and then pick and choose nifty bits from each. For example Byzentine Greeks and early modern Ethiopians (religious focus, cataphracts are badass, as are Ethiopian rock-cut churches) or Koreans and Quechua (mountain focus plus the necrocratic aspects of Quechua politics plus Korean shamanism...).

For a lot of non-human races simply stripping off a lot of the crud that's accumulated onto them to get back to the creepier folkloric origins works well. Get all of the noble savage/Vulcan/hippy treehugging bits off the elves and get back to the creepy assholes in the hollow hills and I'd be happy if I never heard another Scottish dwarf ever again. I like my dwarves grim. The conservative ones wear iron masks and robes so the son never touches their skin and use sign language to communicate with stolen human children who act as interpreters so they never have to speak to non-dwarves.

That's good stuff!

Quote from: The Butcher;934387On a more serious note, I understand it's been done to death in published material. But I like it, for the same reason Howard liked it: this way our characters can joust in Mallory's Arthurian Britain today, explore a tomb in Ancient Egypt tomorrow and ride with the Golden Horde next week. Sure, I try to set up reasonable geographical barriers and cultural buffers, but in the end my players don't care all that much.

Yeah I like a mix of time periods for this reason also

I prefer anything from Post-Roman up through Hundred Years War era, usually. I do enjoy Pike-and-shot age stuff, too, though.

Quote from: The Butcher;934387On a more serious note, I understand it's been done to death in published material. But I like it, for the same reason Howard liked it: this way our characters can joust in Mallory's Arthurian Britain today, explore a tomb in Ancient Egypt tomorrow and ride with the Golden Horde next week. Sure, I try to set up reasonable geographical barriers and cultural buffers, but in the end my players don't care all that much.

Love the Conan stories for this reason and like campaigns that do this as well. I can enjoy games with lots of historical realism, but there is definitely a gameability advantage to mixing periods and throwing in anachronisms.

I once ran a fun campaign of Egyptian tomb robbers set in the reign on Ramses II.  We tried to keep it historical-ish (+fantasy), but when our primary knowledge base is Hollywood ...

Dark Albion is the best of both worlds: a culture in transition.  Albion at the start of the 30-year long campaign period is still pretty well Late Medieval, and by the end of it is early Renaissance.

Quote from: One Horse Town;934274The mood that you're in now, or the time period you prefer from those two options generally when fantasy or historical gaming.

No preference. I like them both.

I also equally like Napoleonics, World War 2, Celtic Britain, Neolithic Laurentia, Feudal Japan, Reconstructionist-era England, Prohibition-era U.S., etc.

Can't abide by the 1970s though. Ugliest decade in human history.