TheRPGSite

The historians on this site have a little bit of a bad habit of telling everybody how there's tons of adventure in Medieval-Authentic campaigns, but it's not going to be D&D standard - without telling us exactly what it is going to be.  Having played/run Harn I got my head around it eventually, but there might be people who don't really get the difference.

So tell us, what are PCs going to do?  Being hired mercenaries/troubleshooters for some Patron is easy, that's available in any time, any place.  Same with Vikings, we got that one.

Give us some examples from history of PCs.  Obviously Lion and Dragon/Dark Albion era will be a focus for Pundit, but what about Reconquista-Era Spain, or the Hundred Years War, Gronan?

Dazzle us with cool PC concepts straight out of history.  What's our party look like?  What do we do over the course of a campaign?  HOW is this different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid

Reading the bit before the contents should be inspiring enough in itself.

In the HYW both sides hired mercenaries like mad, as well as having the Gascons, the Spaniards, and so many others.  Further, knights DID travel from area to area looking for wars to fight in.

Not to mention intrigue, smuggling, arms running, and other forms of mayhem.

See "Sir John Hawkwood."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013796In the HYW both sides hired mercenaries like mad, as well as having the Gascons, the Spaniards, and so many others.  Further, knights DID travel from area to area looking for wars to fight in.

Not to mention intrigue, smuggling, arms running, and other forms of mayhem.

See "Sir John Hawkwood."

So PCs are going to be moving around the countryside from place to place as part of an army or mercenary group and getting up to no good as part and parcel of the military experience.

What about those who aren't actually part of the official fighting?  How does a group of PCs meander about the English countryside coming into towns, talking to the yokels and being hired to do something?  Doesn't really happen quite the same way.

Be specific.  Who do they work for?  Where do they stay?  How are they going to get from place to place?  What is their legal standing or right that lets them decide to travel from London to York?

You're pitching me a medieval game, tell me what it's going to be like, and pretend you care enough to write more than a drive-by. :D

Quote from: Premier;1013795https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid

Reading the bit before the contents should be inspiring enough in itself.

Which, like Gronan's example, brings up a point no one is making.

In the Medieval World, the "heroes", for the most part, are military leaders.

I'll respond in more detail in a week or so when it will be more than a drive by.

Well, let's see, in 1303 the crown jewels of England were stolen right out of the royal treasury.  Paul Doherty wrote a good book about the robbery (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Crown-Jewels-Robbery-1303-ebook/dp/B00GVFLGE2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513298482&sr=8-1&keywords=great+jewel+robbery+of+1303), the hunt for the conspirators, and their punishment. In a scenario inspired by that, the characters could be hired to steal the jewels or to work on the building containing the treasury so that the jewels could be stolen; in which case they might be various sorts of rogues or various sorts of craftsmen.  Royal bureaucrats and local officials which could be any sort of minor warrior or minor clerk or minor guildsman, have to get them back before the king (Edward I, so played, obviously, by Sean Connery) notices the loss and then there are all sorts of unpleasantries.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013798What about those who aren't actually part of the official fighting?  How does a group of PCs meander about the English countryside coming into towns, talking to the yokels and being hired to do something?  Doesn't really happen quite the same way.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013796Not to mention intrigue, smuggling, arms running, and other forms of mayhem.

And if goods travel by water, there WILL be pirates.  And if goods have tarrifs, there WILL be smugglers.  And if merchandise travels across land, there WILL be bandits.

Are you them, or are you fighting them?  Especially since every free man is required by law to assist in such matters.

When I was putting together my Call of Cthulhu game set in ancient Rome, I scoured as many of the mysteries by Steven Saylor or Lindsey Davis as I could find, looking for any idea that I could give a "Mythos twist"  as well as a number of original source histories.  I imagine the same would work with medieval mysteries, by, say, Michael Jecks or Margaret Fraser, or with the histories of real life figures that figure in those novels.

In one series of the Fraser novels, the heroine is a nun who wants to stay in her cloister, but these bodies keep popping up with a severe case of death.  In another the hero is attached to a troupe of wandering players.  In the Jecks series the heroes are a retired knight with a secret, and what is, essentially, a tax collector, but these bodies keep popping up with a severe case of death.

In my experience, it becomes Top Secret/James Bond with swords.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013803And if goods travel by water, there WILL be pirates.  And if goods have tarrifs, there WILL be smugglers.  And if merchandise travels across land, there WILL be bandits.

Are you them, or are you fighting them?  Especially since every free man is required by law to assist in such matters.

So to military, we've added criminals or law enforcement (vigilantes might be good for a one off, but what then?).

You see where I'm going with this line of questioning, right?

How historically accurate is Game of Thrones? Im not talking about dragons and white walkers,  but the mundane stuff.  If it is accurate, what year and region? I've heard War of the Roses, but I'm not a history expert.

Which raises a related question: If you're not a history expert,  what are the top 10 bullet points on how to run a historically accurate game?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013808So to military, we've added criminals or law enforcement (vigilantes might be good for a one off, but what then?).

You see where I'm going with this line of questioning, right?

Well, theoretically we could steal the plot or theme of any piece of medieval literature, too.  So we could take the idea of the Decameron, in which our heroes, such as they are, flee from the plague and pass the time by swapping naughty tales in the middle of nowhere.  But frankly, having seen my gaming group, I don't really want to hear about their fantasies

There are going to be challenges in that social class sometimes figures in how mobile you are (how capable you are to freely leave the service of another), and parties of mixed intent (many different classes in the same party). But something that comes to mind is the religious pilgrimage. A party could be of a collection of classes and say, all traveling to some holy site.

There's a nice book called Hawkquest, where some noble is captured by the Turk emperor, and he demands ransom of a bunch of hunting hawks, the particular ones that can only be found in Iceland. So our hero goes off on a long journey and of course his trip is not smooth and easy....

Fantasy Wargaming (the crummy RPG, not fairly good wargame) covers this quite a bit before screwing up their own bragged upon premise. you are either a noble with certain rights, a soldier/merc with a few rights, or a servant/slave/commoner with just short of no rights. You have to do some juggling to mix a group. It can be done. But it may not be very fun for the commoners in the group if you play it straight.

Furry Outlaws is another. Aside from the populace being Disney taking animals a-la Robin Hood, it is a medieval authentic setting and gives details on playing various social stances and styles of play in that era. Later it introduces magic and the supernatural and how to integrate that into the whole.

The general gist I got from both was that you either were in the system and had to deal with the ups and downs of that. Or you were outside the system and had a different set of things to deal with. Wars and banditry/militia seem to be where alot of the non-intrigue or merchantile action is. Mixed groups are ever going to be tricky depending on the composition.

Quote from: Lynn;1013816There are going to be challenges in that social class sometimes figures in how mobile you are (how capable you are to freely leave the service of another), and parties of mixed intent (many different classes in the same party). But something that comes to mind is the religious pilgrimage. A party could be of a collection of classes and say, all traveling to some holy site.

I was about to say... Yeah the pilgrimage, which was a common enough experience, could involve large groups of very disparate people  --check out Chaucer's wacky gang-- travelling hundreds of miles together across sometimes hostile and physically rough terrain. Throw in the fantasy elements and it's a magical quest. Maybe St. James will heal you, maybe St. Michael will grant you a vision. Maybe St. Bumblefuck will give you a magic power. And on any long journey, there will be complications...

And it's not like the merchant caravan didn't exist. There's trade routes, there's shipping. It could be alt-medieval Traveller. Y'all working for the Hanseatic Guild and you trip from Iceland to Novgorod. Watch out for the Orkney pirates and the Teutonic Knights' fleet and try to run the Danish King's corrupt toll (maybe  he has trolls to collect the Sound's due?). Or you're in the Med, routinely crossing the middle sea from Genoa to Egypt...then somebody (Hey its the beleaguered Byzantine Emperor) taps you to be an envoy who has to get to Samarkand to talk Turkey with Timur.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013808So to military, we've added criminals or law enforcement (vigilantes might be good for a one off, but what then?).

You see where I'm going with this line of questioning, right?

No, I'm really not.

D&D:

* a caravan going to Far Khitai is hiring guards
* a mercenary band is recruiting for a skirmish in West Nowhereistan
* the Temple of the Eager Virgin reports that somebody has stolen the Golden Hootercups of Eternal Perkiness and is offering a reward
* the King is offering a reward for the head of the notorious highwayman Celerus the Nutpuncher
* the village of Post Hole has been attacked by gargoyles and three sheep killed

Medieval:

* A merchant travelling from Lincoln to London is hiring guards, or if you need to travel to London, wants company.
* Sir Thomas d'Aubernon is recruiting troops for a skirmish in Gascony
* The Bishop of Lincoln has reported that somebody has stolen the large presentation Bible
* The Baron is offering a reward for the head of the notorious highwayman Robert the Ballock Smiter
* The village of Post Hole has been attacked by wolves and three sheep killed.  Your neighbors are looking for an experienced hunter.

Yeah, if you're going to play "I'm a peasant and why should I risk anything" it won't work, but it won't work in most games.

But it would help if you told me who you are.  Are you a merchant?  A scholar?  A clerk?  A warrior?

Also, war was how you got rich in the Middle Ages, and face it, most people want to be rich.  The loot taken from the Poitiers campaign was enough to raise the English standard of living noticeably across all social classes.  When a plowman gets paid 6d a year, taking loot worth 50 shillings is life transforming.

Quote from: saskganesh;1013836And it's not like the merchant caravan didn't exist. There's trade routes, there's shipping. It could be alt-medieval Traveller. Y'all working for the Hanseatic Guild and you trip from Iceland to Novgorod. Watch out for the Orkney pirates and the Teutonic Knights' fleet and try to run the Danish King's corrupt toll (maybe  he has trolls to collect the Sound's due?). Or you're in the Med, routinely crossing the middle sea from Genoa to Egypt...then somebody (Hey its the beleaguered Byzantine Emperor) taps you to be an envoy who has to get to Samarkand to talk Turkey with Timur.

Oh HELL yeah.

Or read "The Travels of Sir John Mandeville".  If that doesn't want to make you visit "the Khan of Cathay", I don't know what will.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013839No, I'm really not.

D&D:

* a caravan going to Far Khitai is hiring guards
* a mercenary band is recruiting for a skirmish in West Nowhereistan
* the Temple of the Eager Virgin reports that somebody has stolen the Golden Hootercups of Eternal Perkiness and is offering a reward
* the King is offering a reward for the head of the notorious highwayman Celerus the Nutpuncher
* the village of Post Hole has been attacked by gargoyles and three sheep killed

In all these examples, the PCs are "Adventurers", and in-between these adventures, the PCs are usually free to lounge about Inns and Taverns, or just go out into the wilderness where there's humanoids and monsters to kill and loot.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013839* A merchant travelling from Lincoln to London is hiring guards, or if you need to travel to London, wants company.
* Sir Thomas d'Aubernon is recruiting troops for a skirmish in Gascony
* The Bishop of Lincoln has reported that somebody has stolen the large presentation Bible
* The Baron is offering a reward for the head of the notorious highwayman Robert the Ballock Smiter
* The village of Post Hole has been attacked by wolves and three sheep killed.  Your neighbors are looking for an experienced hunter.

In all these examples, the PCs are...what?  Yeah you can come up a list of single isolated events.  How about a campaign?  How about what happens in between?

How does that work when the PCs don't have the D&D Conceit of the Adventurer, or the Old West Conceit of the Saddle Tramp to rely on?

Was medieval England filled with small groups of wandering armed and armored bounty hunters, executioners, huntsman, etc who traveled the land freely picking up odd jobs and moving on?

Is it more likely that you are someone with a "Day Job", and/or a Patron of some kind as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?
Is it more likely you are more tied to an area and perform your "adventures" in protection/enrichment of that area as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?

It's kind of a side point, but from a character perspective, history and fantasy might not be all that different.  Though magic wasn't/isn't real, belief in magic was ubiquitous.  There's room for the mysterious and unexplained.

You might:
* Rescue a powerful artifact from those who would misuse it.
* Visit the emperor of Constantinople who was blinding to behold, his voice booming, and who could appear and vanish from sight.
* Rescue a village from a plague caused by the secret plots of an underground cult that worships ancient and false idols.
* Journey through many perils to the domain of a mysterious healer to save a stricken comrade.
* Investigate "miraculous" happenings in service of the church.
* You might even have a magician PC - for example see Merlin or Nimue in Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856Was medieval England filled with small groups of wandering armed and armored bounty hunters, executioners, huntsman, etc who traveled the land freely picking up odd jobs and moving on?

Well, 14th century France was, if that's the kind of game you're after.

The rest of your question depends a lot on when and where you are talking about.  The middle ages weren't monolithic and unchanging.  There's tremendous verity between time and place.  Of course, you know all of this so these questions seem rather rhetorical.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1013865It's kind of a side point, but from a character perspective, history and fantasy might not be all that different.  Though magic wasn't/isn't real, belief in magic was ubiquitous.  There's room for the mysterious and unexplained.

You might:
* Rescue a powerful artifact from those who would misuse it.
* Visit the emperor of Constantinople who was blinding to behold, his voice booming, and who could appear and vanish from sight.
* Rescue a village from a plague caused by the secret plots of an underground cult that worships ancient and false idols.
* Journey through many perils to the domain of a mysterious healer to save a stricken comrade.
* Investigate "miraculous" happenings in service of the church.
* You might even have a magician PC - for example see Merlin or Nimue in Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles.

These are all good single examples, but again, if there is any difference or uniqueness to a Medieval Society as opposed to a Fantasy West, it seems like it's going to be heavily in the time "in-between" jobs for Patrons in a place and time where Freedom and the ability to travel wherever the hell you felt like it, might not be taken for granted.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013789The historians on this site have a little bit of a bad habit of telling everybody how there's tons of adventure in Medieval-Authentic campaigns, but it's not going to be D&D standard - without telling us exactly what it is going to be.  Having played/run Harn I got my head around it eventually, but there might be people who don't really get the difference.

So tell us, what are PCs going to do?  Being hired mercenaries/troubleshooters for some Patron is easy, that's available in any time, any place.  Same with Vikings, we got that one.

Give us some examples from history of PCs.  Obviously Lion and Dragon/Dark Albion era will be a focus for Pundit, but what about Reconquista-Era Spain, or the Hundred Years War, Gronan?

Dazzle us with cool PC concepts straight out of history.  What's our party look like?  What do we do over the course of a campaign?  HOW is this different?

I actually like historical based campaigns for D&D and have designed two mini-campaigns over the last fifteen months for this...

The First was The Second Crusade, Which starts out in England at the beginning of the Second Crusade in 1147 A.D.. The players get to choose. They can be Clerics, Templars, English Common Folk, English Criminals, Refugees from the Norman Civil war, The fighting between Mathilda of Normandy and King Stephen, or a part of the Dutch or German Knights. They could even play Spanish or Portugese Knights or Clerics of the Holy Church. Here is the Introduction:

The Second Crusade

Player's Introduction
To the Lords and very dear Fathers, the Archbishops, and the Bishops, with the whole clergy, and the faithful people of Normandy and Anglia: Bernard, called the Abbot of Clairvoix, desires that you may abound in the spirit of strength.

I write to you with respect to a matter that concerns the service of Christ, in whom is our salvation. This I say in order that the Lord's authority may excuse the unworthiness of the person who speaks; let the consideration of its usefulness to yourselves also excuse the fault of my address. I, indeed, am of small account; but I have no small love for all of you, in the bowels of Jesus Christ. This, now, is my reason in writing to you, that I many thus approach you as a whole. I would rather do so by word of mouth, if the opportunity, as well as the will, were afforded me.

Behold, Brethren, now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation. The earth is also moved and has trembled, because the God of Heaven has begun to destroy the land which is his: his, I say, in which the word of the Father was taught, and where he dwelt for more than thirty years, a man among men; his, for he enlightened it with miracles, he consecrated it with his own blood.; in it appeared the first fruits of his resurrection. And now, for our sins, the enemies of the Cross have raised blaspheming heads, ravaging with the edge of a sword the land of promise. For they are almost on the point , if there be not One to withstand them, of bursting into the very city of the living God, of the holy places of the spotless Lamb with purple blood. Alas! They rage against the very shrine of the Christian faith with blasphemous mouths, and would enter and trample down the very couch on which, for us, our Life lay down to sleep in death.

What are you going to do then, O brave men? What are you doing, O servants of the Cross? Will you give what is holy to the dogs, and cast your pearls before swine? How many sinners there, confessing their sin with tears, have obtained pardon, after the defilement of the heathen had been purged by the swords of your fathers! The wicked man sees and is grieved; he gnashes with his teeth, and consumes away. He prepares the instruments of sin, and will leave no sign or trace of so great piety, if ever (Which, God Forbid!) he gain possession of this holiest of holy places. Verily that would be an irremediable grief to all time, and irrecoverable loss, a vast disgrace to this most disgraceless generation, and an everlasting shame.

What are we to think Brethren? Is the Lord's arm shortened so that it cannot save, because he calls his weak creatures to guard and restore his heritage? Can he not send more than twelve legions of angels, or merely speak the word, and the land shall be set free? It is altogether in his power to effect what he wishes; but Itell you, the Lord, your God, is trying you. He looks upon the sons of men to see if there be any to understand, and seek, and bewail his error. For the Lord hath pity upon his people, and provides a sure remedy for those that are afflicted.

Think what care he uses for your salvation, and wonder. Behold the Abyss of his love, and trust him. O ye sinners. He wills not your death, but that you may turn and live; for now he seeks occasion, not against you, but for your benefit. What opportunity of salvation has God not tried and sought out, when the almighty deigns to summon to his service murderers, robbers, adulterers, perjurers, and those guilty of other crimes, as if they were a people that dealt righteously? Doubt him not, O Sinners; God is kind. If he willed to punish you, he not only would not seek your service, but would not accept it when offered.

Again I say, weigh the riches of the goodness of the Highest God; hear his plan of mercy. He makes, or feigns, a need for himself, while he desires to help you in your necessity. He wills to be held a debtor, that he may give pay to those who fight for him, pardon of sins, and everlasting glory. Therefore I may call it a highly favored generation which has happened on a time so full of indulgence; upon which has come the acceptable year of the Lord, a very jubilee, for this blessing is spread over the whole world, and all fly eagerly to the sign of life.

Since, therefore your land is fruitful in brave men, and is known to be full of robust youth, since your praise is in the who9le world, and the fame of your valor has filled the entire Earth, gird up your loins manfully, and take up arms in zeal for the Christian name. Let not your former warlike skill cease, but only that spirit of hatred in which you are accustomed to strike down and kill one another and in turn be overcome yourselves. How dire a madness goads those wretched men, when kinsmen strike each other's bodies with the sword, perchance causing the soul also to perish! But he does not escape who triumphs; the sword shall go through his own soul also, when he thinks to have slain his enemy only. To enter such combat is madness, not valor: it is not to be ascribed to bravery, but rather to foolishness.

But now, O Brave Knight, Now, O Warlike Hero, here is a battle you may fight without danger, where it is glory to conquer, and gain to die. If you are a prudent merchant, if you are a desirer of this world, behold, I show you some great bargains; see that you lose them not. Take the sign of the Cross and you shall gain pardon for every sin that you confess with a contrite heart. The material itself, being bought, is worth little; but of placed on a devout shoulder, it is, without doubt, worth no less than the Kingdom of God. Therefore, they have done well who have already taken the heavenly sign and wisely also will the rest do, if they hasten to lay upon their shoulders, like the first, the sign of salvation.

On May 19, 1147, a contingent of crusaders left from Dartmouth in England, consisting of Flemish, Frisian, Norman, English, and Scottish crusaders, and some from Cologne, who collectively considered themselves "Franks". No prince or king was in charge of this expedition, and its participants seem to have been largely made up of townsmen, who organised themselves using a sworn oath. Leadership was provided by Hervey de Glanvill, Constable of Suffolk. Other crusader captains included Arnout IV, Count of Aarschot leading the Rhinelanders, Christian of Gistel leading the Flemish and Boulogne forces, and the Anglo-Norman forces led by Simon of Dover, Andrew of London, and Saher of Archelle. Historically this was the only successful Christian Expedition of the Second Crusade...

PAX BRITANNIA

My second historical D&D adventure, One that I'm working on for this Christmas is set in Roman Briton in 53 A.D. The Players are Romans, part of Legio II Augusta, they are sent north of Eboracvm to help secure the support of the Brigantes Queen Cartimandua. This is based on an actual historical incident where Cartimandua, the Queen of the Brigantes divorced her husband the King, King Venutius. Cartimandua casting aside her husband Venutius, She took Vellocatus, his armour-bearer, in marriage and to share in governing the realm of the Brigantes, which at the time, stretched from coast-to-coast, north of York, all the way up into what is presently the Scottish Highlands. From her 700 acre walled fortress about 40 miles North of York, near present day Stanwick, she defended herself, her people, and her new husband with help from the Romans, ...from all the rest of the Brigantes
in Briton.

There are Roman Soldiers, Priests, Celts, Brigantes, Druids, Witches, and Wizards in this game... and it is D&D.

Quote from: EOTB;1013805In my experience, it becomes Top Secret/James Bond with swords.

I'd play that!

Quote from: saskganesh;1013836Maybe St. Bumblefuck will give you a magic power.

St. Bumblefuck is my favorite saint!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856In all these examples, the PCs are...what?  Yeah you can come up a list of single isolated events.  How about a campaign?  How about what happens in between?

They go home and fuck.

Or shack up locally and fuck.

Medieval or Renaissance are pre-Industrial so the main focus of life is farming and surviving winters. Even the most

AKA, its like Pendragon where the seasons determine most travel and activities.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856How does that work when the PCs don't have the D&D Conceit of the Adventurer, or the Old West Conceit of the Saddle Tramp to rely on?

They are either wandering vagabonds with no home constantly under suspicion, or they have a place in the societal structure (church, army, nobility, etc).

And once the vagabonds become rich, they buy into the societal structure.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856Was medieval England filled with small groups of wandering armed and armored bounty hunters, executioners, huntsman, etc who traveled the land freely picking up odd jobs and moving on?

Outsiders were generally feared and distrusted...because they weren't in the societal structure.

Wearing arms and armor about wasn't conducive to a long life, unless that was your place in society.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856Is it more likely that you are someone with a "Day Job", and/or a Patron of some kind as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?

Probably.

Unless you wanted to run "vagabonds on parade" and see if they can steal enough gold to buy into a noble rank.

AKA, the non-magical version of OD&D.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856Is it more likely you are more tied to an area and perform your "adventures" in protection/enrichment of that area as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?

Depends on the players. If the Italian PCs want to travel to China, there will certainly be some adventure. If they just want to travel about Italy, there will also be adventure, just with less kung fu and noodles.

Personally, I run localized fantasy campaigns - rarely larger than a continent, often much smaller.  

Travel by foot (even by horse) is really slow.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856In all these examples, the PCs are...what?  Yeah you can come up a list of single isolated events.  How about a campaign?  How about what happens in between?

How does that work when the PCs don't have the D&D Conceit of the Adventurer, or the Old West Conceit of the Saddle Tramp to rely on?

Was medieval England filled with small groups of wandering armed and armored bounty hunters, executioners, huntsman, etc who traveled the land freely picking up odd jobs and moving on?

Is it more likely that you are someone with a "Day Job", and/or a Patron of some kind as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?
Is it more likely you are more tied to an area and perform your "adventures" in protection/enrichment of that area as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?

1: The PCs under a patron might be local militia or such when not ranging out doing... stuff!

2: The PCs either are citizens and thus under some lord, baron, whatever. and likely considered the equivalent of servants or whatever the local terminology will be. Or are free ranging and may be considered poachers if they are within someones lands.

3: If I recall correctly there were traveling craftsmen in some areas. While in others its very localized. Soldiers and other servants like huntsmen traveled where they were told to. Within limits or permissions usually. Though wasnt it common for mercenaries to travel to other countries instead if they could?

4: A medieval authentic setting is going to play very differently than a fantasy one. The more real world grounded it gets the more different its likely to play if you are really playing the period well.

x: Least thats the impressions I keep getting from occasional research. Same with say playing in the age of sail or the wild west or victorian era and so on. Or even the differences between low mid and high fantasy settings.

Quote from: wombat1;1013811Well, theoretically we could steal the plot or theme of any piece of medieval literature, too.  So we could take the idea of the Decameron, in which our heroes, such as they are, flee from the plague and pass the time by swapping naughty tales in the middle of nowhere.  But frankly, having seen my gaming group, I don't really want to hear about their fantasies

You could even read the whole thing, and find that it consists mainly of the 100 stories they tell, which are quite varied and describe interesting goings on before the plague started, and notice how they describe how people got up to all sorts of adventures, even the nuns and wives and servants and so on. Many of the stories are romantic adventures, but they involve power dynamics and sneaking about and deception and fighting and so on, as well.

Then you could read The Canterbury Tales, or Beowulf, or the other accounts of religious (the clergy are often a bit like the mafia, especially around Rome) and noble people (raiding each other for loot) or merchants (sailing about trying to make a fortune and not die at sea) or even the antics of commoners, and notice how much random adventure the common folk got up to (no, not plundering fantasy dungeons and killing goblin children, but going about messing with each other or trying to escape people messing with them, etc).

Or you could just be lazy and watch some Netflix (e.g. The Last Kingdom, Black Death, El Cid, Decameron, Canterbury Tales, The Name of The Rose, Ironclad, Arn, etc) and realize that there are no telephones or photo IDs, and so if you have PCs with education, intelligence, and appropriate clothes, let alone actual connections and/or money, they can probably get up to quite a bit of travel and (mis)adventure.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013870These are all good single examples, but again, if there is any difference or uniqueness to a Medieval Society as opposed to a Fantasy West, it seems like it's going to be heavily in the time "in-between" jobs for Patrons in a place and time where Freedom and the ability to travel wherever the hell you felt like it, might not be taken for granted.

I see.

The difference is not so much "what do the PCs do" as the world.  What I said in the Lion and Dragon thread is

"History is more glamorous, terrible, imaginative, heroic, and pathetic than all the fantasy game settings ever written put together.

History ROCKS and game worlds suck ass. "

Even if you run a bog-standard D&D game, it will be better in a historical setting.  Fuck Game of Thrones; Steven and Matilda's War, the Ist Crusade, the Barons' Uprising, the Jacquerie Revolt, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of the Roses, are a thousand times more full of excitement, drama, and horror than any fiction.  Okay, maybe less dragons in the battles, but that's about it.

And Drizzledick the Drow is not 1/1,000,000th as interesting a character as William Marshall, Bertrand du Guescelin, Sir John Hawkwood, Richard Couer de Leon, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Pedro the Cruel, Harold Godwinson, etc, etc, etc.

And some of us in our D&D worlds do not have PCs with unlimited "freedom and the ability to travel wherever the hell you felt like it."  I haven't run a D&D game of "PCs accountable to absolutely no one" since 1975 or so.  Yeah, I provide a world where adventuring is possible, but at the end of the day there is still somebody somewhere you are accountable to.  But communications are slow or nonexistant; just because you are part of a system does not mean somebody is sitting on your shoulder watching your every move.

When you play a historically based medieval RPG, you have to engage with the conceits of the game.  On the other hand, this is true of ANY game; fantasy, Sf, superheroes, Star Wars, Star Trek, cyberpunk, horror, whatever; you have to accept the setting for what it is.  Just like you can make a character in a D&D world who refuses to adventure, you can make a medieval character who refuses to adventure.  That's not the settings fault.

"I am Dafyd the Cooper of the town of Aberystwith in the land of Wales and I am going to sit in my village and make barrels, and nothing the referee says will make me change my mind, yup yup yup."
"I am Dickshits the Cooper of the town of Fucktown in the land of Asscrack and I am going to sit in my village and make barrels, and nothing the referee says will make me change my mind, yup yup yup."

Also, you need to remember that travel was slow, difficult, and not safe!  The only way to travel without being robbed is to look like the risk isn't worth the reward.  But even a peasant might be killed for his boots or his belt; poverty was no guarantee of safety.  Either you have to be a large enough number to simply not look worth the effort, or you have to look sufficiently badass that robbing you is probably a bad idea.

Several posters here have already suggested a number of characters that aren't nobility/military, but there are plenty of others.

The Abbot of Raby needs to send a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  This will take several weeks each way at best; as one of the novices assigned to the messenger's train to care for the mules, you are going to see a LOT of England this year.  Your only protection is the size of your group and hoping that your position as clerks will protect you.

Your father is a merchant.  He needs a letter of credit sent from York to Venice.  He has sent you to be in charge of this. Even if everything goes ABSOLTELY PERFECTLY, this is going to take the better part of a year! You have some money and some retainers.  You are to go to Venice, deliver the letter to Tomaso di Medici, and accompany the cargo back to York.  You are ON YOUR OWN.  Once you are out of sight of your father, that's it.  You have nobody to depend on but yourself and your hopefully loyal retainers.  Assuming you make it to London, and then to Calais, then what?  Do you travel by sea to Venice, risking the sea, the storms, the winds, and the pirates?  Or do you travel overland, risking cutting through France where the English and French are at war, and there are other bandits besides those?  And is it the right cargo?  Does somebody try to swap out inferior crap?  And then you have to get HOME!

You are an English student at the University of Paris.  The city has just heard of the English victory over the French at Sluys.  How does this affect your standing in the University?  How does this affect your relationship with your French second cousins?  Do your fellow students agree with the guildmen of the city about the perfidity of the English, or do the students see this as yet another "Town vs Gown" conflict and disagree with the bourgeoisie simply because nobody can possibly agree with those clodheads?

And never underestimate the value of "You heard something."  The US military was warned about the impending German attack -- the Battle of the Bulge -- by a Belgian housewife who overheard something.  Anybody, from groom to priest to squire to lady's maid to queen, can overhear something, and that something can be anything from plotting a robbery to bribing an abbot to back a certain candidate for Bishop to trade secrets of a guild to the plot to assassinate King Henry V.  And once you've heard it, who do you need to tell it to?  And how do you get past the reluctance of whoever your master is, to let you just run off?  Lack of mobility and freedom becomes PART OF THE ADVENTURE.

Hope this helps.

Yep, "getting there is half the death" (er, adventure). Also why having nice travel rules (or GM understanding of travel details) can create a whole game just in the travel situations.

Another common and legitimate reason for practically anyone to travel is going on a pilgrimage to a religious site. Pilgrims to Rome bringing valuable gifts were common (and provided a steady stream of loot and/or victims for the Papacy).

"Tarim doesn't love you, he just wants your money!"

In a strictly historical Anglo-Saxon England of 710 AD, you're a hungry 17-year-old man who is among the relative few with the muscle, brain, and ambition to be professional warriors. You have a basic degree of training given by elders or friendly associates of your family, but nothing more in the world than what you're carrying on your back. You've teamed up with your friends in a warband of 6-10 young men, and your first priority is to do something impressive enough that the local lords want to invite you into their household. So what do you do?

* Steal cattle from the rival tribe across the river, and survive the inevitable repercussions should you succeed.
* Take down a warband from that rival tribe, maybe one who just stole cattle
* Get a load of valuable goods from your settlement to another, avoiding or fending off robbers as you go
* Defend a minster harried by heathen remnants or schismatic raiders
* Explore a Roman ruin and use its loot to win favor with your lord of choice
* Extract a defector from the rival tribe and get him to his desired lord alive and intact
* Do an unscrupulous Frankish merchant enough favors to get some of his precious foreign goods for lord-gifting purposes

Once a lord agrees you've got talent and inducts you into his household, you're one of the geoguth, the young turks who have a claim on the lord's support and gifts, but who haven't yet proven their mettle. Which means you get all the really "fun" jobs, the ones most likely to get somebody killed, because you need proper opportunity to demonstrate how capable you are. And when the lord doesn't have a job for you? Well, you've got to maintain order in the land he's given to you, keep the local Church happy with you, get married and sire children, and deal with your fellow warriors of the household, who may or may not like you very much. Oh, and keep your lord alive- if he dies, good form insists you die with him or avenge him at all costs. And do all this quickly, because you're probably going to be dead before you're 35.

To use parallels more familiar to most gamers, you're Anglo-Saxon samurai in service to your thane-daimyo. Hell, some of you even carry around paired long and short swords.

Quote from: Aglondir;1013809How historically accurate is Game of Thrones? Im not talking about dragons and white walkers,  but the mundane stuff.  If it is accurate, what year and region? I've heard War of the Roses, but I'm not a history expert.

Which raises a related question: If you're not a history expert,  what are the top 10 bullet points on how to run a historically accurate game?

GoT takes a lot of liberties because its a story, not a documentary. It has many historical echoes, but it's more of a D&D world than a historical one.

The main thing about running any game is to have confidence in your setting. Whether it's your own sandbox, some purchased boxed setting,  or a historical recreation. Know your material. With history, you'll be well served to read a few books in your area, but don't bother trying to become an "expert" because you could take years. But if you like reading, it's not a problem. At minimum you should read one book that captures the high level/big picture of politics, religion and warfare and another which presents daily life in your chosen milieu. So ideally two books. And get on with your gaming.

You'll likely have players who are more versed in your era than you. If they are cool, let them help you world build, fill in details that come up in play and collaborate. Be open, correct mistakes when possible and and leverage their knowledge. Discuss the setting between sessions. But if they are jerks, nothing you present will be accurate enough for them, and they will complain and nitpick... your game will die and/or they will leave and everyone's time is wasted. That's the biggest pitfall.

Riffing on the concept of the pilgimage with its members drawn across the social strata so as to allow a vehicle for your typical RPG crazy quilt adventurer party of misfit toys and hobos, I came up with this:

You're all companions of a wandering friar named Skakey Bill Newcastle, who has sworn to visit every shrine in Christiandom because of his many sins, sins that he just keeps on making. Shakey Bill is always on the move, and joins and sometimes forms pilgram parties. His travel take him across Europe and even to the Levant. His companions, many of whom are armed (eg the PCs), provide necessary security and other talents. Shakey Bill is Falstaffian and Charismatic, larger than life, but because of his laziness and alcoholism and hangovers, is unable to participate in every episodic adventure that might pop up along the way (every game session in fact). More patron than Mary Stu. He is also a spy for King Henry and the PCs may or may not know this at first. Regardless, he has a wide range of contacts and enemies and is part of AND outside society for maximum campaign flexibility.

Party consists of (for example) a Welsh Longbowman, a slumming English lordling, a Parisian cutpurse, a Hermetic magician disguised as a nun, and a Sufi assassin (eg. Nasir from Robin of Sherwood TV series). Obviously, you all met in a series of taverns...

So the game is an accessible mash of Monster of the Week, Wagon Train, Black Company and James Bond with Swords. And once you get tired of the fat friar as mission central/plot device, and want to move the game on to something else, just have him arrested and burned as a heretic. Done.

Might be outside of the scope of the question, but another possibility is a relatively early Medieval game set as the events from the fall of Rome are fading, and the Medieval society and castes are being developed.  Things are a little more fluid at this point.  The local "lord" trying to build a stable government needs a lot, only starting with loyal soldiers.  He needs connections with the literate, with merchants, and so forth.  None of the neighbors are inherently trustworthy.  Might be fun for the kind of group that wants to do a merchant company, when everything about commerce is an adventure.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013789Dazzle us with cool PC concepts straight out of history.  What's our party look like?  What do we do over the course of a campaign?  HOW is this different?

Off the top of my head, the medieval court is like a job fair. You go and hang out and hope among the people there (or the lord himself) will throw out something that will earn the character or party money. Part of the intrigue of the court is about being in the right place at the right time with the right recommendations for this stuff.

Having said that the court of the local Baron will be considerably simpler to navigate. There going to be the Baron, his immediate official and everybody else looking for something which likely amount only to only a handful at any given time.

However the most readily available jobs are going to be the shit jobs by local standards. The rest are going to be doled out right away by the people whom the Baron and his official know and trust. But do the shit job well then you can get to be part of the in-crowd.

If you are talking early medieval think Sons of Anarchy if there were no cops around. The early medieval lords were little better than biker gangs in how they dealt with each other. However it doesn't mean they were all asshole and depraved human beings. Where is show up the most is that everybody takes things personally. There is no such thing as the motto "It just just business".

Later one as things become more sophisticated and organized it moves away from this.

But even then still boils down to who you know and a web of favors exchanged. The later you progress in the medieval the more the idea takes hold that the nobles are truly special. At first is only the king as both temporal and spiritual protector of his people. But as society grows more sophisticated the need for people to calm down and stop taking everything personally grows. Hence the growth of ideas and philosophies that that there something to aspire too along with realization that some of this stuff make sense like the growth of English Common Law. There a lot less feuding and bloodshed when a murderer is condemned by twelve peers than the older methods.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013796In the HYW both sides hired mercenaries like mad, as well as having the Gascons, the Spaniards, and so many others.  Further, knights DID travel from area to area looking for wars to fight in.

Not to mention intrigue, smuggling, arms running, and other forms of mayhem.

See "Sir John Hawkwood."

Note that really took hold more in the middle of the medieval era when money became more of a economic factor. Before it was more about how many you could feed, cloth, and arm on a daily basis in your Great Hall from what you harvested on your estate.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013839Also, war was how you got rich in the Middle Ages, and face it, most people want to be rich.  The loot taken from the Poitiers campaign was enough to raise the English standard of living noticeably across all social classes.  When a plowman gets paid 6d a year, taking loot worth 50 shillings is life transforming.

That true for the High Middle Ages around the 13th to 14th century. Go back earlier it more about who has the biggest gang about how many you could feed directly off the land. A different dynamic than the noble affinities of the Hundred Years War.

Quote from: SineNomine;1013963To use parallels more familiar to most gamers, you're Anglo-Saxon samurai in service to your thane-daimyo. Hell, some of you even carry around paired long and short swords.

Good summary. I will only add, that it is a long grey smear from the Migration Period, to Charlemagne/Anglo-Saxon/Vikings, to that of Conquest, to the Hundred Year War, and then to the Renaissance/Reformation Era, and then to the English Civil War. Each time period has its own dynamic with echoes of the past and the future within it.

The main driving force in all that is the regrowth of economic sophistication that was shattered by the collapse of the Roman Empire. The starting point is a Germanic warband united by a charismatic leader chosen for his prowess and ability to provide, living off of whatever land they can hold. To something starting to resemble our modern era with legal systems, the ability to trade over long distances, corporate entities, etc.

That the main thing that people had to deal with socially was the power of personal charisma versus the rule of law. With society shifting towards rule of law over time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856In all these examples, the PCs are...what?  Yeah you can come up a list of single isolated events.  How about a campaign?  How about what happens in between?

How does that work when the PCs don't have the D&D Conceit of the Adventurer, or the Old West Conceit of the Saddle Tramp to rely on?

Was medieval England filled with small groups of wandering armed and armored bounty hunters, executioners, huntsman, etc who traveled the land freely picking up odd jobs and moving on?

Well, adventurer type PCs (aka "Brigands") :D roaming an England in need of heroes/villains are probably a lot more plausible in the Calamitous 14th Century, or to some extent the 15th, than in the relatively orderly 13th century of the High Medieval Epoch. Like most real Brigands they are probably former soldiers, well equipped but now unpaid & unemployed, looking to sustain themselves via sword (well, more likely bill hook) & cuirass.

If you want "Permanent Adventure Land" then maybe set the game in the Scottish/English borders, it seems to have been pretty Chaotic there for centuries on end - just replace Orcs with English (or Scottish). :D

Those of you with my Majestic Wilderlands supplements know that I have different regions of reflect different types of fantasy settings. What I didn't get into much was I also have notes on the economics of each region.

Taking inspiration from different time periods and just as importantly how more sophisticated economic regions dealt with less sophisticated economic regions. For example Western Europe versus Eastern Europe (outside of the Balkans) versus Russia in the High Middle Ages.

Where this shows up in the campaign is how NPCs act towards the players when they are trying to conduct business or arrange deals. In the City-State of the Invincible Overlord it quite possible for a deal to be solely financial in nature and written up in a contract. Among the Tharian Horse Lords however it requires not only the Clan Chief personally liking you a lot, but also the transport of physical goods. Silver is valued but for anything in quantity they want actual grain, armor, or weapons in return. And finalizing the deal will involve the PCs and the Chief giving each other their personal oaths to honor the terms.

Quote from: saskganesh;1013966GoT takes a lot of liberties because its a story, not a documentary. It has many historical echoes, but it's more of a D&D world than a historical one.

It has a lot of modernisms (mostly woe-is-me tropes, like queens making feminist statements), a-historicality (religion is a relatively minor force in most seasons), and a lot of fantasy tropes. But overall it has a rather more historical-grounded feel than some actual historical novels I've read. I still can't believe I read the whole of The Crusader, a straight transposition of US Vietnam War+ tropes to the 12th century, expecting it to get better. The crusader hero's concern about Human Rights Violations against the Indigenous Muslim Community, and his complete lack of interest in any spiritual matters of Christianity, was even stupider than his US Boot Camp "Templar" training. GoT never sinks quite that low I think, at least its Hollywood Grand Guignol is not a straight copy of a different era of history.

Also my general rule of thumb for these details is that they need to translate via some path to how a NPC will behave. When I am taking notes or writing things up, this is what I have in mind to focus on. What does X mean for the NPCs I roleplay.

For example the default for regions dominated by the culture of the Ghinorian is people are expected to be truthful, honest, and uphold their word due to the fact they believe themselves to be chosen people of Mitra, the Goddess of Honor and Justice.

IN contrast the Sarnic people also believe they are a chosen people, that of the death god Hamakhis. They believe they must support their god with their labor and faith as he need all their strength to control the Orb of Chaos to hold the demons in their prison. Their society "average" is very different than that of the Ghinorians. Their default attitude despite the use of human sacrifice and necromantic powers by their priests is that they are doing a vital but dirty job and they are only ones tough enough to do it.

And both cultures think the other is deluded and weak.

The same for understanding how the middle ages work.  The noble lord believes himself superior because he has the connection, the health, the resources, and a philosophy of life that backs him up. And just as important the "average" of medieval society believes this as well. If a PC goes up against a feudal lord in the Majestic Wilderlands the biggest issue isn't how many attacks or magic item the guy has, the biggest issues is all the people he know and that are willing to come to his aid because of the web of favors and social interconnections that surrounds him.

Quote from: estar;1013983If a PC goes up against a feudal lord in the Majestic Wilderlands the biggest issue isn't how many attacks or magic item the guy has, the biggest issues is all the people he know and that are willing to come to his aid because of the web of favors and social interconnections that surrounds him.

True in my Wilderlands too. :D It's great seeing players grok this and start building their own webs of connections. I feel I have a much better understanding of how feudalism actually works IRL, from seeing it work in-game.

Special thanks to Gamedaddy and Kevin Crawford, those were awesome.  

See Gronan, you're catching on.  Take those 30 years of study and reading that you have internalized to the point that they form baseline automatic assumptions and give us some more detailed good stuff.  :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013933When you play a historically based medieval RPG, you have to engage with the conceits of the game.  

That's a great set of ideas. Sounds fun. Now I am sad that you don't live closer to me so I could con you into running something historical.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013870These are all good single examples, but again, if there is any difference or uniqueness to a Medieval Society as opposed to a Fantasy West, it seems like it's going to be heavily in the time "in-between" jobs for Patrons in a place and time where Freedom and the ability to travel wherever the hell you felt like it, might not be taken for granted.

The difference that you seem to be looking for, or talking about, is the historical context - social, cultural, political etc. that the game takes place in.  I think we have already established that "what you do" isn't that different from a fantasy game, minus the dragons, dungeon exploration and boots of levitation.  To capture that context, you really need a GM who knows the period (which shouldn't be to hard considering the number of historians that are drawn to RPGs), but I think it's an error to think that it is essential to perfectly capture the context to make an enjoyable historical game.

I think it is hard to come up with a list of "truisms" for the medieval period that travel was x, social mobility was y, men were men, and pigs were money.  A game that tries to "accurately" portray the medieval world in generic terms will probably fail. To really grab the context, if that's your goal, you need to dig into to the specifics of time and place: are you opportunists in the 4th Crusade, household milites on the Carolingian frontier, agents of the papacy infiltrating Cluniac debauchery, or Cathars trying to preserve the truth?  There's limitless options, and all of them will break some assumptions about what the medieval world was like.  

However, I would say that some of that context can be ignored to accommodate play  - just as it is in a fantasy game.  I mean, we assume that there are "medieval" social and cultural norms in the "fantasy west", but we also largely ignore them.  How many fantasy games consider the importance of birth, social station, family and religion? PCs in almost all rpgs are largely disconnected from social bondage.  Medieval societies were diverse enough that you can still find room to play that way.  Of course, it will be more "authentic" if the GM can really grasp the context and force PCs to work within its strictures, but there is no reason why some of that context cant be bent to accommodate the game

All I've gotten from this is that the PC's have to be Lords or tied to a Lord to be able to do anything.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014028All I've gotten from this is that the PC's have to be Lords or tied to a Lord to be able to do anything.

If your goal is to play in a straight-historical game then that means engaging with society as it existed. And in many societies, at many times, the standard way of obtaining wealth, power, and glory did mean you had to have ties to the local authority structure. Those are the dudes in charge. If you are not connected to them and to the legitimacy they represent, nobody else is going to take you seriously either. Once magic and exotic situations are inserted there are other paths to success, but if a player's going to grimly avoid the setting-normal ways of getting ahead, I have to wonder why they're playing in that setting in the first place.

In many settings, trying to gain wealth and power without working with the local aristocracy is like trying to gain wealth and power in 2017 without interacting with fiat currency. It is not impossible, it is just really, really atypical.

Let me add my humble contribution:).

The first thing you must get out of the way is, don't try to turn history into D&D. Let me quote Gronan out of context, just to make my point;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013933Lack of mobility and freedom becomes PART OF THE ADVENTURE.

And that's a major part of it, if you think it through.
In whatever setting that's either historical, or clinging more closely to historical conceits, you must first accept the setting for what it is. Don't think how bad people had it back then, or how we're so much superior. Just accept it - lack of mobility and freedom included. And yes, along with the fact that YOU (your PC, really), isn't the most important thing...odds are, that's an idea even the PC subscribes to, because he or she should know his or her place in the scheme of things!

Then look at their daily lives. What is it we take for granted that they achieve with only great efforts?
Obtaining that is one possible source of adventures.

What moved those people to violence, charity or self-sacrifice?
Dealing with those things is another source. (Hint: religious wars weren't really fought for money, not from the side of the grunts).

How was society organised? What would be detrimental to it?
Dealing with such things is yet another source of adventures.

I'm not even mentioning the goals of the characters, that should go without saying:D!

And in all those adventures, you keep the setting in mind. Because you have to achieve your goals by acting in ways the setting allows, or at least doesn't punish.


There, you have the "master key". Now re-read the thread and you'd notice that most of the examples fall into one of the above categories. Stealing the crown jewels? Proving the king unable to protect his crown would have a really detrimental effect on the whole kingdom - especially given that society was based around the ruler's ability to provide protection:p!
Moving a letter? Something we take for granted, but they have to work for;).

Hence why in my experience 'Medieval Authentic' doesn't really work.

I think it works well for some people.

Players who take delight in the setting for its own sake, and who don't prioritize acting on their own impulses will enjoy it.  I prefer the "western in medieval drag" of AD&D, where most of the game takes place outside the reach of a central authority - where a party carves their own likeness into a wilderness over time with minimal regard of what some noble's objectives are.  So I have no real interest (at least beyond a one-shot) in being one of the Duke of Bumblefuck's strong arms, regardless of how dazzling the DM's depiction of the setting is.

But many others enjoy sitting down on a game night and accomplishing an objective they didn't come up with themselves.  And they spend money too.

I would expect an historical/authentic campaign to focus on political scheming and the fall out of that. Powerful individual vs powerful individual, faction vs faction, country vs country. On land, sea and sky. I think it can work, and it will have a strong theme. But it would be quite different to usual DnD.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014028All I've gotten from this is that the PC's have to be Lords or tied to a Lord to be able to do anything.

Depending on the era. Thats about right. You either are are a noble, bound to one somehow, or are outside all that and effectively living off the land and possibly dodging arrest. Even the itenerant mercs tend to be bound to someone and dependant on them for housing. Others had their own systems.

But the real problem in a medieval authentic setting is that your life expectancy is low. Mostly due to the near lack of medical treatment past basic first aid. Infections are going to be the biggest worry of any merc. No healing spells, no potions. And if there is either of those then its not "authentic".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014044Hence why in my experience 'Medieval Authentic' doesn't really work.

There are plenty of D&D or other campaigns that are centered on one area and the PCs never venture beyond. Not every table has groups interested wilderness travel. For them the adventures in and around the town or city are enough. You'll even get that in games like Shadowrun.

Quote from: Omega;1014060There are plenty of D&D or other campaigns that are centered on one area and the PCs never venture beyond. Not every table has groups interested wilderness travel. For them the adventures in and around the town or city are enough. You'll even get that in games like Shadowrun.

Like I said about a decade back, I ran a 3.5 game in which the players were part of a sportsman's team.  The sport?  Jousting.  There were no ruins to explore, no tombs to loot, just a game's circuit with the Fighter being the main athlete.  There were other contests, like Archery, which was the Rogue's bag.  The Wizard in the party had no attack spells (not that it was needed, the Divination school was brutally effective.) and the Cleric focused on healing.

Now admittedly, there were bandits to be flushed, politics to avoid and mysteries to be solved as well as just the games.  However, it was at no point anywhere near historically accurate, in fact, we liked the idea of the Heath Ledger movie, A Knight's Tale (I was however, the only who actually LIKED the film) and wanted to do something like that.

Heres a need documentary on Knights by KnowledgeHub. It has some details on the lifestyles and boons and limits of the era.

[video=youtube;2d2e08Z01Jw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d2e08Z01Jw[/youtube]

Quote from: estar;1013972The early medieval lords were little better than biker gangs in how they dealt with each other.

In Gregory of Tours' "History of the Franks" the lord is called "Magnus" and his retainers are "puerii."

IN English, this translates to "The Big Man and his boys."

Quote from: S'mon;1013978Well, adventurer type PCs (aka "Brigands") :D roaming an England in need of heroes/villains are probably a lot more plausible in the Calamitous 14th Century, or to some extent the 15th, than in the relatively orderly 13th century of the High Medieval Epoch. Like most real Brigands they are probably former soldiers, well equipped but now unpaid & unemployed, looking to sustain themselves via sword (well, more likely bill hook) & cuirass.

If you want "Permanent Adventure Land" then maybe set the game in the Scottish/English borders, it seems to have been pretty Chaotic there for centuries on end - just replace Orcs with English (or Scottish). :D

And if it's 14th century Gascony, this with knobs on.

Remember the difference between "bandits" and "mercenaries for hire" is how long it's been since the lads last had a decent meal.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014044Hence why in my experience 'Medieval Authentic' doesn't really work.

It sure sounds from various recent threads like you're hell-bent on it not working and are deliberately obtuse about refusing to admit any proof to the contrary.

I've covered this before, like, literally as recently as 24 hours or so ago on this very forum.

But I'll bring it up in another way here. These were all things that different PCs or groups of PCs actually did in the various Dark Albion campaigns (which obviously applies to things a party could do in Lion & Dragon):

-Worked as agents-at-large for a Lord
-Worked as spies for a lord or the crown
-worked as mercenaries or sell-swords
-worked in or ran a medieval gang in London or another large city
-worked in and rose up the ranks of a Livery Company in London or another large city
-Became a group of bandits
-became a group of outlaws/rebels
-worked as tomb-robbers
-went out in search of rare artifacts
-worked for the Church as inquisitors
-worked in the Royal Court, or engaged in courtly/noble intrigue
-engaged in smuggling/forgery
-worked in/studied in/taught at a Collegium/university
-fought in the Rose War
-worked as or against reivers in the northern border
-carved out a territory for themselves in the Debatable Land
-went out on expeditions, usually for religious purposes, to some mystical site

There are obviously other things you can do, and some things are perhaps more historically medieval (while others are more literary-medieval) than others. But that's a pretty big list.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014260And if it's 14th century Gascony, this with knobs on.

Remember the difference between "bandits" and "mercenaries for hire" is how long it's been since the lads last had a decent meal.

This is very true and something D&D is not great at emphasising, they tend to be separate monster categories with brigands as vaguely pathetic mooks in leather (d6 hp in MM1) while mercenaries are heavily armoured & much tougher (typically scale armour and 4-7 hp in 1e DMG). It took me a while & reading history to realise that a 'brigand' was normally an unemployed mercenary who turned bandit BECAUSE he was a tough fighting man with good armour. He decided to make his living by robbing folk, but it was his equipment that made that a practical occupation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313I've covered this before, like, literally as recently as 24 hours or so ago on this very forum.

But I'll bring it up in another way here. These were all things that different PCs or groups of PCs actually did in the various Dark Albion campaigns (which obviously applies to things a party could do in Lion & Dragon):

Let's break this down:

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-Worked as agents-at-large for a Lord

So working for a lord.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-Worked as spies for a lord or the crown

Working for a lord.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-worked as mercenaries or sell-swords

Unlawful bandits (Mercenaries were not liked, and even if they didn't go bandit, everyone thinks they do.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-worked in or ran a medieval gang in London or another large city

So bandits again.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-worked in and rose up the ranks of a Livery Company in London or another large city

Working for a lord.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-Became a group of bandits
-became a group of outlaws/rebels
-worked as tomb-robbers
-went out in search of rare artifacts

So bandits.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-worked for the Church as inquisitors
-worked in the Royal Court, or engaged in courtly/noble intrigue

So be a Lord or work for them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-engaged in smuggling/forgery

Banditry.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313-worked in/studied in/taught at a Collegium/university
-fought in the Rose War
-worked as or against reivers in the northern border
-carved out a territory for themselves in the Debatable Land
-went out on expeditions, usually for religious purposes, to some mystical site

All of which require you to be part of a Lord's retinue.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014313There are obviously other things you can do, and some things are perhaps more historically medieval (while others are more literary-medieval) than others. But that's a pretty big list.

And all of which all boil down to two options.  First nobility, be part of it in some fashion.  Or second, you're always on the run, because you're thieves and killers, which means that no good (scared into being lawful) village will harbour them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013789The historians on this site have a little bit of a bad habit of telling everybody how there's tons of adventure in Medieval-Authentic campaigns, but it's not going to be D&D standard - without telling us exactly what it is going to be.  Having played/run Harn I got my head around it eventually, but there might be people who don't really get the difference.

So tell us, what are PCs going to do?  Being hired mercenaries/troubleshooters for some Patron is easy, that's available in any time, any place.  Same with Vikings, we got that one.

Give us some examples from history of PCs.  Obviously Lion and Dragon/Dark Albion era will be a focus for Pundit, but what about Reconquista-Era Spain, or the Hundred Years War, Gronan?

Dazzle us with cool PC concepts straight out of history.  What's our party look like?  What do we do over the course of a campaign?  HOW is this different?

That sounded easy to do, but ...

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013798So PCs are going to be moving around the countryside from place to place as part of an army or mercenary group and getting up to no good as part and parcel of the military experience.

What about those who aren't actually part of the official fighting?  How does a group of PCs meander about the English countryside coming into towns, talking to the yokels and being hired to do something?  Doesn't really happen quite the same way.

Be specific.  Who do they work for?  Where do they stay?  How are they going to get from place to place?  What is their legal standing or right that lets them decide to travel from London to York?

You're pitching me a medieval game, tell me what it's going to be like, and pretend you care enough to write more than a drive-by. :D

And ...

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013856In all these examples, the PCs are "Adventurers", and in-between these adventures, the PCs are usually free to lounge about Inns and Taverns, or just go out into the wilderness where there's humanoids and monsters to kill and loot.


In all these examples, the PCs are...what?  Yeah you can come up a list of single isolated events.  How about a campaign?  How about what happens in between?

How does that work when the PCs don't have the D&D Conceit of the Adventurer, or the Old West Conceit of the Saddle Tramp to rely on?

Was medieval England filled with small groups of wandering armed and armored bounty hunters, executioners, huntsman, etc who traveled the land freely picking up odd jobs and moving on?

Is it more likely that you are someone with a "Day Job", and/or a Patron of some kind as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?
Is it more likely you are more tied to an area and perform your "adventures" in protection/enrichment of that area as compared to a D&D fantasy world norm?

You seem to have an agenda that you are hinting at but I am having trouble discerning.

Are you trying to say "Nothing anyone has suggested is any different from D&D"?

Pilgrimages are good in medieval settings:

• You do a pilgrimage to absolve a sin, to gain something from a patron saint, because someone has told you to do it as a penance, or whatever. In a RPG, you could gain forgiveness for an atrocity, gain a new spell, get out of being hanged and so on.
• Every day's walk on pilgrimage routes, you will find an inn where pilgrims can sleep, or a tavern where they can drink. Plenty of chances for interacting with NPCs.
• Pilgrims are often attacked and robbed, so plenty of chances to fight off bandits.

There are many kinds of investigation scenario:

• Finding a killer and hunting them down
• Searching for heretics and working out who they are
• Identifying a sorcerer or witch and bringing them to justice/learning from them
• Finding a merchant who is getting around guild rules

Monster-slaying scenarios:

• Hunting wild boar, bears and wolves
• Hunting mythical dragons
• Giant-slaying

The game sometimes pushes players into playing a certain way.

D&D has classes, so many adventures are built around the classes. D&D PCs are members of a class and that defines how they act, in many ways. Experience is gained in certain ways, which drives scenarios.

RQ has skills and professions, so those become important in the advantures. A RQ PC has a profession, but that pretty much goes out of the window once a game starts, unless the PC is employed in that profession. PCs gain skills, improve skills, learn new magic and gain equipment/magical weapons. A RQ scholar has a different focus to a soldier, but both could play a part in a Deus Vult-style game where they search for heretical knowledge.

I would point out working for the Holy Church is a different route from being or working for bandits or lords, even if the Crusades are (almost) over, and I also consider mercenaries to be a more neutral 'middle route' option, but Christopher is mostly right: outlaw, mercenary, nobility, church

and of course it mainly is about guys, but one can still play as believable female characters, especially if from noble origin

I wish to add another route to the realistic route list however, which is more or less ignored in the thread: trader

Italian merchants already had strong influence in the Dark Ages and while cities like Genoa and Venice have already started to decay the middle class getting stronger wouldn't stop in any realm. They were also the group most involved with foreign cultures and religions due to trade routes, and still highly involved in Italian/Church politics at the time of the WotR. While the glory of Merchant Republics starts to fade they still are a relevant group to build a character around (merchant family marrying into poor nobility for the title, or be a Genoan sellsword, ect) and you got Hansa in the North, a 'late bloomer' trader faction also present in England.

So, I think this represents the 'realistic faction routes' best

• outlaws
• mercenaries
• aristocracy
• merchants
• church

[/B]

Some overlap is of course possible. Especially if the character has relations or an origin in the north of the Holy Roman Empire or in Italia.

Quote from: Omega;1014060There are plenty of D&D or other campaigns that are centered on one area and the PCs never venture beyond. Not every table has groups interested wilderness travel. For them the adventures in and around the town or city are enough. You'll even get that in games like Shadowrun.

I think the key is "in his experience";). If you are trying to make it fail, it ain't going to work, but the problem isn't with the campaign concepts, it's purely with you.

Quote from: joriandrake;1014340I would point out working for the Holy Church is a different route from being or working for bandits or lords, even if the Crusades are (almost) over, and I also consider mercenaries to be a more neutral 'middle route' option, but Christopher is mostly right: outlaw, mercenary, nobility, church

and of course it mainly is about guys, but one can still play as believable female characters, especially if from noble origin

I wish to add another route to the realistic route list however, which is more or less ignored in the thread: trader

Italian merchants already had strong influence in the Dark Ages and while cities like Genoa and Venice have already started to decay the middle class getting stronger wouldn't stop in any realm. They were also the group most involved with foreign cultures and religions due to trade routes, and still highly involved in Italian/Church politics at the time of the WotR. While the glory of Merchant Republics starts to fade they still are a relevant group to build a character around (merchant family marrying into poor nobility for the title, or be a Genoan sellsword, ect) and you got Hansa in the North, a 'late bloomer' trader faction also present in England.

So, I think this represents the 'realistic faction routes' best

• outlaws
• mercenaries
• aristocracy
• merchants
• church

[/B]
 wh
Some overlap is of course possible. Especially if the character has relations or an origin in the north of the Holy Roman Empire or in Italia.

You can also work as or for non-outlaw rogues, including wandering entertainers, for guilds, for or as personally renowned crafters, for a secret society like freemasons (though there are many others), for universities, as students, for or as scientists.

Quote from: AsenRG;1014354I think the key is "in his experience";). If you are trying to make it fail, it ain't going to work, but the problem isn't with the campaign concepts, it's purely with you.


You can also work as or for non-outlaw rogues, including wandering entertainers, for guilds, for or as personally renowned crafters, for a secret society like freemasons (though there are many others), for universities, as students, for or as scientists.

True, I don't think those count as large-scale, important factions though, and I considered guilds to be under/affiliated with merchants, and most scientists/universities under church with some under aristocracy or merchants. As I wrote most characters can overlap multiple of them. Which is the normal, historical case anyway. (just consider how many from clergy were actually Xth child from an aristocratic family)

Quote from: joriandrake;1014359True, I don't think those count as large-scale, important factions though, and I considered guilds to be under/affiliated with merchants, and most scientists/universities under church with some under aristocracy or merchants. As I wrote most characters can overlap multiple of them. Which is the normal, historical case anyway. (just consider how many from clergy were actually Xth child from an aristocratic family)

I'd say the university, like that of Bologna, is separate from the Church as well as the aristocracy. But yes, you'd have to get lots of overlap, purely because the structure of society includes "those who fight", "those who prey", and "others", much like in Classic Traveller careers:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1014361I'd say the university, like that of Bologna, is separate from the Church as well as the aristocracy. But yes, you'd have to get lots of overlap, purely because the structure of society includes "those who fight", "those who prey", and "others", much like in Classic Traveller careers:D!

I would say the University of Bologna was more or less always affiliated with the Papacy & local aristocracy (except when it was more with the HRE) but we seem to mostly agree. :)

Spoiler

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-4658.1999.tb00092.x/abstract

https://books.google.hu/books?id=SPA0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=university+of+bologna+papacy&source=bl&ots=ir_BrwyK5k&sig=OnelCsodJiHg5zASbqvDPF0Zkt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj16c3YnJHYAhWLgpAKHTBfBTcQ6AEIbzAJ

Quote from: soltakss;1014336Are you trying to say "Nothing anyone has suggested is any different from D&D"?

No.  Really, I'm trying to suss out the different underlying campaign assumptions that would exist in a Medieval-Authentic campaign, and how that would fundamentally and dramatically change the adventuring paradigm and I'm giving the site historians with letters after their name in history a chance to expound.

Quote from: joriandrake;1014366I would say the University of Bologna was more or less always affiliated with the Papacy & local aristocracy (except when it was more with the HRE) but we seem to mostly agree. :)

Spoiler

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1477-4658.1999.tb00092.x/abstract

https://books.google.hu/books?id=SPA0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=university+of+bologna+papacy&source=bl&ots=ir_BrwyK5k&sig=OnelCsodJiHg5zASbqvDPF0Zkt8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj16c3YnJHYAhWLgpAKHTBfBTcQ6AEIbzAJ

Well, the way I know its history, it was created by students associating to get lessons from travelling scholars:).

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014416No.  Really, I'm trying to suss out the different underlying campaign assumptions that would exist in a Medieval-Authentic campaign, and how that would fundamentally and dramatically change the adventuring paradigm and I'm giving the site historians with letters after their name in history a chance to expound.

Can't the rest of us contribute;)?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014312It sure sounds from various recent threads like you're hell-bent on it not working and are deliberately obtuse about refusing to admit any proof to the contrary.

Combined with an apparent refusal to read the many detailed posts people are throwing up there, yeah.  Look, Christopher, it's plain that you either disagree with the concept, or want no part of the concept, or are just being mulish.  Whatever.  You hate the idea, we get it.  At this point, you're threadcrapping.

Quote from: Aglondir;1013809Which raises a related question: If you're not a history expert,  what are the top 10 bullet points on how to run a historically accurate game?

A lot of people have said a lot of things, no need to repeat them.  But there are a few things that could be leaned on a bit more than they have:

1) Too many people have this notion in their heads that "medieval" is some monolithic value, and that what holds true for 10th century Burgundy is pretty much the same for 12th century Scotland or 14th century Tuscany.  Hollywood notwithstanding, there was a wide variation of wealth, technology, commerce and lifestyle, and that's even if you completely ignore anything outside of western Europe.  That small cask of jewels which might be the rich payoff for a party in 13th century Florence could likely buy all of 11th century Caithness.

2) Faith is pervasive.  Cosmopolitan areas in medieval Europe -- by which I mean "places where those who differ from the dominant faith aren't continually if not viciously persecuted" -- are few and far between, and minority sects are just as intolerant anywhere they gain the upper hand.  What medieval folk would consider a "freethinker" we'd perceive as espousing relatively narrow doctrinal differences from the Faith According To Rome, and a lot of those folk wound up executed.  Failing to pay at least lip service to standard Catholic beliefs and practices comes with a real and enduring risk.

3) Everyone has their place in society, and people who Don't Fit put everyone else on edge.  I agree with the idea behind "everything flows from the aristocracy," but it's a bit broader than that: everyone's expected to play up to their perceived role.  Wandering, masterless people without an apparent, obvious goal (= your average RPG party) falls outside the paradigm, and that's not acceptable.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014420A lot of people have said a lot of things, no need to repeat them.  But there are a few things that could be leaned on a bit more than they have:

1) Too many people have this notion in their heads that "medieval" is some monolithic value, and that what holds true for 10th century Burgundy is pretty much the same for 12th century Scotland or 14th century Tuscany.  Hollywood notwithstanding, there was a wide variation of wealth, technology, commerce and lifestyle, and that's even if you completely ignore anything outside of western Europe.  That small cask of jewels which might be the rich payoff for a party in 13th century Florence could likely buy all of 11th century Caithness.

2) Faith is pervasive.  Cosmopolitan areas in medieval Europe -- by which I mean "places where those who differ from the dominant faith aren't continually if not viciously persecuted" -- are few and far between, and minority sects are just as intolerant anywhere they gain the upper hand.  What medieval folk would consider a "freethinker" we'd perceive as espousing relatively narrow doctrinal differences from the Faith According To Rome, and a lot of those folk wound up executed.  Failing to pay at least lip service to standard Catholic beliefs and practices comes with a real and enduring risk.

3) Everyone has their place in society, and people who Don't Fit put everyone else on edge.  I agree with the idea behind "everything flows from the aristocracy," but it's a bit broader than that: everyone's expected to play up to their perceived role.  Wandering, masterless people without an apparent, obvious goal (= your average RPG party) falls outside the paradigm, and that's not acceptable.

1. Indeed:).
2. So "faith is pervasive, and unchecked". The rest can be gleaned from today's history;).
However, there's also something that you fail to mention. Faith at the time is the main way people relate to each other, apart from family ties, and often comes before friendship and business dealings.
3. Yes, the concept that "masterless men" are a threat applies to Medieval Europe just as fully as it does apply to ronin in Japan. You're not cogs in a machine, but you have choices within the place you've got. In some places, even trying to change your lot in life can be seen as wrong - and I don't mean just India! That also means that hierarchy is real, not imagined, and should be followed - lip service ain't gonna cut it. Higher ups are indeed apart from you, and you're not judged the same way.

I'd also add.
4. The concept of the individual being more important than the group doesn't exist. In fact, the individual pretty much can't survive (for long) without a group! Your first group is your extended family, which sticks together the way clans stick together today. And if you think that's a bad thing, remember all the fairy tales that begin by "the orphan was abused by X", and think about the implications.
5. The concepts of "innocent until proven otherwise", "rights of the accused" and for that matter, "fair trial" and "equality before law" are either unexistant, or would seem downright weird. Lots of laws at the time have "if the perpetrator of a crime is rich, he should pay X amount of silver, but if not, he should be branded/maimed/executed/outlawed".

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014420Wandering, masterless people without an apparent, obvious goal (= your average RPG party) falls outside the paradigm, and that's not acceptable.

Well, I'm not exactly a Brady fan, but that is the essence of what he's saying.  
1. You work for a Lord, or are one.
2. You work for the Church, or are one.
3. You work for the Merchants, or are one.
4. You are a criminal.

Boil it down to: You are a Master, or you have one.

In addition to the points Raven said above, there's one big one...

4) There is no frontier.  There is no Untamed Land to be conquered anywhere in Europe.  If you are carving new habitable land out of raw wilderness, then you meet the 800lb gorilla in the room:

5) Your adversaries are all human.  

Ravenswing's points above and the ones I added are going to fundamentally change the nature of a campaign that will alter not only what the PCs do, but how they live.

More on this later...

I think it is really a pretty simple concept. In a game with a setting that has some sort of historical versimilitude, the basic geography, technology and social roles, structures and relationships are more or less realistic and draw on historical facts for a lot of the colorful details, instead of relying on a bunch of bull shit that reads like a 14 year old's fantasy novel. But the sort of action you get up to can vary from historically informed plots and events, to all the usual fun nonsense exploring ruins, chopping monsters into bits, hunting for treasure, etc. You can run a campaign with a lot of medieval authenticity and still do fun things like pushing sharp objects through giants or looting crypts or whatever.

Incidentally, if you have a kind of zany high fantasy approach to games and are interested in reconciling that with medieval authenticity/versimilitude, the original Mort de Arthur is a fantastic resource. It was written by a kind of roguish, violent member of the gentry/lower nobility, at a time not much later than the high middle ages period we're discussing, takes a highly anachronistic approach to its characters and settings (i.e., he's writing about his view of high medieval people, even though the story is nominally set much earlier). And it is chock-a block full of bat-shit crazy stuff. Giants and zombies and sociopathic villains and magicians and bizarre magical places, objects and people, and casual adventures as a lifestyle. It is not at all the constrained, straight-laced story lines some of the critics in this thread are complaining about

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014312It sure sounds from various recent threads like you're hell-bent on it not working and are deliberately obtuse about refusing to admit any proof to the contrary.

Which is par for the course.  "I tried this and didn't like it, therefore nobody has ever made it work or liked it anywhere ever" is his standard gambit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014028All I've gotten from this is that the PC's have to be Lords or tied to a Lord to be able to do anything.

Yes.  And that is a feature, not a bug.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014429Incidentally, if you have a kind of zany high fantasy approach to games and are interested in reconciling that with medieval authenticity/versimilitude, the original Mort de Arthur is a fantastic resource. It was written by a kind of roguish, violent member of the gentry/lower nobility, at a time not much later than the high middle ages period we're discussing, takes a highly anachronistic approach to its characters and settings (i.e., he's writing about his view of high medieval people, even though the story is nominally set much earlier). And it is chock-a block full of bat-shit crazy stuff. Giants and zombies and sociopathic villains and magicians and bizarre magical places, objects and people, and casual adventures as a lifestyle. It is not at all the constrained, straight-laced story lines some of the critics in this thread are complaining about

Bloody this.

Quote from: S'mon;1014325This is very true and something D&D is not great at emphasising, they tend to be separate monster categories with brigands as vaguely pathetic mooks in leather (d6 hp in MM1) while mercenaries are heavily armoured & much tougher (typically scale armour and 4-7 hp in 1e DMG). It took me a while & reading history to realise that a 'brigand' was normally an unemployed mercenary who turned bandit BECAUSE he was a tough fighting man with good armour. He decided to make his living by robbing folk, but it was his equipment that made that a practical occupation.

That's good.  My personal take on it is that "bandits" are unemployed mercenaries, but "brigands" are honest to God outlaws in the legal sense; declared "outside the law" and acting as a band of robbers.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014416No.  Really, I'm trying to suss out the different underlying campaign assumptions that would exist in a Medieval-Authentic campaign, and how that would fundamentally and dramatically change the adventuring paradigm and I'm giving the site historians with letters after their name in history a chance to expound.

Well, as I pointed out, a single trip from York to Venice and back could take a year of game time.  A long, difficult, dangerous year.  If your referee has anything on the ball and your PC doesn't spend all his time hiding in the privy, there are opportunities for all kinds of mayhem.  That's not one session, that's a good chunk of a campaign.  Also, as somebody pointed out, medieval legends are full of magic and monsters.

The two big differences from D&D are that travel is a big deal always, and where you fit in the hierarchy is a big deal always.  Testing the limits of your freedom is one of the challenges of the game.

And the referee doesn't have to make up a map or a bunch of NPCs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014433That's good.  My personal take on it is that "bandits" are unemployed mercenaries, but "brigands" are honest to God outlaws in the legal sense; declared "outside the law" and acting as a band of robbers.

Can't bandits or brigands be anyone who for some reason got outside of law to prey upon others (travellers ect)? Like a poacher who hunted illegally in the woods of a noble to feed his family, thus once found out making himself and family into outlaws, becoming bandit out of necessity? Aren't the two words interchangeable? Is this about a certain meaning for the word bandit/brigand in English I may be unaware of?

I'm going to go back to post 28 and reiterate what I said there; it's not so much that a historical medieval game would be drastically different, it's that the map, setting, and NPCs will be infinitely better than anything ever done specifically for a game.

Quote from: joriandrake;1014437Can't bandits or brigands be anyone who for some reason got outside of law to prey upon others (travellers ect)? Like a poacher who hunted illegally in the woods of a noble to feed his family, thus once found out making himself and family into outlaws, becoming bandit out of necessity? Aren't thw two words interchangeable? Is this about a certain meaning for the word bandit/brigand in English I may be unaware of?

Original D&D had "bandits" that were neutral and "brigands" that were chaotic.  That is my explanation for why they're different.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014426Well, I'm not exactly a Brady fan, but that is the essence of what he's saying.  
1. You work for a Lord, or are one.
2. You work for the Church, or are one.
3. You work for the Merchants, or are one.
4. You are a criminal.

Boil it down to: You are a Master, or you have one.

Yes.  This is a feature, not a bug.  Much like the difficulty of travel, engaging with this is part of the fun.  And it's not like your master sits around in your underwear; as I pointed out in my post about the merchant's son, once you are out of sight of your lord, you are on your fucking OWN.

Quote from: CRKrueger;10144264) There is no frontier.  There is no Untamed Land to be conquered anywhere in Europe.  If you are carving new habitable land out of raw wilderness, then you meet the 800lb gorilla in the room:

Not really.  Even in tiny little England there are desolate, isolated areas.  Also, the area of what will become Germany has entire regions of small isolated castles here and there.  It practically reads like OD&D volume 3.

Quote from: CRKrueger;10144265) Your adversaries are all human.  

Goblins, fay, ghosts, witches, dragons, ogres, etc, all exist in the medieval mind.  King Arthur fought a giant, and Merlin was a wizard.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014426Ravenswing's points above and the ones I added are going to fundamentally change the nature of a campaign that will alter not only what the PCs do, but how they live.

I think one problem is viewing this as a change from D&D - i.e. start by assuming D&D and a standard D&D adventuring party, and then try to tweak things from there. I think it is easier to start from other RPG models about how adventures are done, rather than D&D. Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, James Bond, Traveller and other games all have different ways of setting up adventures. I think it is easier to start thinking of these than to think of D&D. i.e. Traveller's free trader crew is a model for a merchant caravan, for example.

It also helps to look at other medieval RPGs. Ars Magica and Pendragon come to mind. Two things to note about these:

a) Since the PCs aren't homeless wanderers, adventures are likely to be interspersed among periods of downtime. Both of these games have rules to support making long-term activity more fun and interesting.

b) There may be varying characters in the party. Ars Magica in particular is designed assuming this. There is a changing troupe, and generally only one magi will go along.

A few of my medieval or medieval-ish RPGs included setups like:  (1) Members of a viking extended family, who would go on exploration and trading missions as well as raids together. (2) A group of missionaries of an unusual religion sent into a foreign land to establish a new mission. (3) Persons of note in a small village at the crossroads of a tense political situation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014426Well, I'm not exactly a Brady fan, but that is the essence of what he's saying.
1. You work for a Lord, or are one.
2. You work for the Church, or are one.
3. You work for the Merchants, or are one.
4. You are a criminal.

Boil it down to: You are a Master, or you have one.

Being criminals is often a matter of perspective. Particularly in times of political instability, criminals can turn into upstanding citizens and back again several times. In general, I recommend that PCs be of mostly noble birth in a medieval campaign - even if they are churchmen, merchants, or criminals. It makes many aspects of play go easier. It can be fun to rebel against the status quo, but I think that's a better fit for games in other eras or more fictional worlds.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014426Boil it down to: You are a Master, or you have one.

Ah, but there's a step further than that: the very nature of feudalism is that unless you're the Pope, you always have someone set above you -- however theoretically -- to which at the level best you have to take into consideration when making big political decisions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014426There is no frontier.  There is no Untamed Land to be conquered anywhere in Europe.

Not quite true.  The Black Death depopulated a lot of areas, some of which stayed depopulated into the 20th century.  Nothing like the American West "you can ride days in any direction without seeing another human being" thing, but enough for the purpose.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014463...unless you're the Pope, you always have someone set above...

=God

Depopulated does not mean "Untamed Land you have to conquer".  Aside from the very few predators, depopulated just means a logistical problem:  labor, resources, survival against the elements.  There's no humanoids, monsters or anything else actively stopping you, no matter what the people believe.

Now if you cross that line into fantasy, then you get the possibility of a Points of Light type setting where Ogres could be in that forest or a Troll could be in that cave and Roman Ruins are haunts of the undead.

Once you do that, you take a giant step away from Medieval-Authentic and D&Disms start to become possible.

Quote from: joriandrake;1014437Can't bandits or brigands be anyone who for some reason got outside of law to prey upon others (travellers ect)? Like a poacher who hunted illegally in the woods of a noble to feed his family, thus once found out making himself and family into outlaws, becoming bandit out of necessity? Aren't the two words interchangeable? Is this about a certain meaning for the word bandit/brigand in English I may be unaware of?

Historically two common groups of outlaws are ordinary people for whatever reason forced to live in the wilderness/countryside and live a life of crime. Or trained warriors with no lord or employment forced to live a life of crime in the wilderness/countryside.  One group is considerably more dangerous than the other and have distinct differences in origin. And given the social stratification of the time one is not likely to mix with the other.

Personally I call ordinary outlaws bandits, and outlaw mercenaries brigands. The same division that Gronan makes but switched around. I did this because of the dictionary definitions.

QuoteBandit
a robber or outlaw belonging to a gang and typically operating in an isolated or lawless area.

QuoteBrigand
a member of a gang that ambushes and robs people in forests and mountains

but Brigand came with this note.

Quotelate Middle English (also denoting an irregular foot soldier): from Old French, from Italian brigante, literally '(person) contending,' from brigare 'contend' (see brigade).

while bandit's note was

Quotelate 16th century: from Italian bandito, literally 'banned,' past participle of bandire .

I guess if we want to be more authentic the proper division would be outlaws versus brigand as bandit is a 16th century term. God bless English and it taking every damn word it can from other languages.

I attached the writeup I made for my Majestic Wilderlands campaign using Swords & Wizardry/OD&D.
[ATTACH]2030[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014333Let's break this down:

By your logic, every D&D party are either bandits or 'working for a lord' too. So what's the source of your complaint? Or maybe you just don't like D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014481By your logic, every D&D party are either bandits or 'working for a lord' too. So what's the source of your complaint? Or maybe you just don't like D&D.

He doesn't like old school D&D.

This is not a problem.

He doesn't want anybody else to like it either.

This is a problem.

Quote from: Aglondir;1013809Which raises a related question: If you're not a history expert,  what are the top 10 bullet points on how to run a historically accurate game?

I should note that I provide a list of what I think are the most important points for a GM to understand about the times and culture, in Lion & Dragon.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014426Well, I'm not exactly a Brady fan, but that is the essence of what he's saying.  
1. You work for a Lord, or are one.
2. You work for the Church, or are one.
3. You work for the Merchants, or are one.
4. You are a criminal.

Boil it down to: You are a Master, or you have one.

If you define 'master' vaguely enough, that would be true of any RPG.

If you define 'master' more strictly, then he's wrong, even in the list he quoted. He chose to define some things as 'bandits' that are clearly different from being 'bandits' (like being in a gang in the city), and things as 'working for a lord' that are explicitly NOT working for a lord at all (like being part of a Guild, who were free men that weren't nobles and worked for themselves; or working at a Collegium who were also independent)

Quote4) There is no frontier.  There is no Untamed Land to be conquered anywhere in Europe.  If you are carving new habitable land out of raw wilderness, then you meet the 800lb gorilla in the room:

There was literally a frontier in the border region between England and Scotland (Scots' Land in Dark Albion).  The Debateable Land wasn't something I just made up, nor were the Reiver Lands. These were places that actually existed and that were often run by outlaws, dubious 'knights' or 'lords', exiles, or what-have-you.

In Dark Albion, I also exaggerate the wildness of the Pennines, the North, Wales, Eire Land, and the smaller islands around Albion, to make other frontiers. There's no reason you can't do that to make a setting a touch more mythical without being too much less historical.

Quote5) Your adversaries are all human.  

That's entirely a choice.

Medieval-Authentic D&D is not "historical non-supernatural D&D". The point is that it reflects medieval folklore, medieval ideas about legends, about magic, about monsters, etc.
The point is that your magic items and monsters and magic are the way people thought of them in the medieval period, instead of swords being mass-produced in magic factories, spells being based on something a fantasy-writer just pulled out of his ass in the 1960s, or monsters being allegories for modern fears about nuclear war or nazis or misunderstood-immortal-prettyboy-emos.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014429Incidentally, if you have a kind of zany high fantasy approach to games and are interested in reconciling that with medieval authenticity/versimilitude, the original Mort de Arthur is a fantastic resource. It was written by a kind of roguish, violent member of the gentry/lower nobility, at a time not much later than the high middle ages period we're discussing

It was, in fact, written at the end of the middle ages, during the War of the Roses, by a guy who fought in them. And my feeling is that his experience during the War of the Roses deeply informed that story.  Though of course, not in the overt way that writers do things these days.

Quotetakes a highly anachronistic approach to its characters and settings (i.e., he's writing about his view of high medieval people, even though the story is nominally set much earlier). And it is chock-a block full of bat-shit crazy stuff. Giants and zombies and sociopathic villains and magicians and bizarre magical places, objects and people, and casual adventures as a lifestyle. It is not at all the constrained, straight-laced story lines some of the critics in this thread are complaining about

It is in fact an excellent viewpoint into the medieval mindset. And was an inspiration for Lion & Dragon.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014466Once you do that, you take a giant step away from Medieval-Authentic and D&Disms start to become possible.

I think you really are confusing "historical roleplaying" with "medieval-authentic roleplaying". They're not the same thing.
Medieval-Authentic roleplaying is fantasy. Historical roleplaying is the one that isn't.
Otherwise, you could just all it "medieval", instead of "medieval-authentic", the authentic means "making FANTASY more based on medieval culture and lore".

Quote from: joriandrake;1014437Can't bandits or brigands be anyone who for some reason got outside of law to prey upon others (travellers ect)? Like a poacher who hunted illegally in the woods of a noble to feed his family, thus once found out making himself and family into outlaws, becoming bandit out of necessity? Aren't the two words interchangeable? Is this about a certain meaning for the word bandit/brigand in English I may be unaware of?

I believe "brigand" derives from brigandine, the standard professional soldier's armour of the later middle ages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine - roughly equivalent to D&D bandmail or splintmail. Anyone wearing brigandine could be a 'brigand'. :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014438I'm going to go back to post 28 and reiterate what I said there; it's not so much that a historical medieval game would be drastically different, it's that the map, setting, and NPCs will be infinitely better than anything ever done specifically for a game.

Thats very YMMV. Not everyone wants to play a setting even bleaker than Warhammer and Dark Sun combined where you are likely under someones thumb one way or another and if you are a soldier or frequent combat type your life expectancy may be all of one battle before you die of infection. Or you might survive many. But are possibly allso pretty dinged up.

As for adventure. Heres one pointed out to my by a historian.

A traveler was in some lands able to call upon a certain level of hospitality from strangers. That could be as simple as being allowed to sleep in the barn. Or a meal. But there was ever the risk of who you can trust or not. If you had any valuables you might be at risk. And valuables include your fine sword and armour.

Im sure there were other hazards to travelers like wild animals. Wolves and boars you hear about now and then. Or even weather.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014440Goblins, fay, ghosts, witches, dragons, ogres, etc, all exist in the medieval mind.  King Arthur fought a giant, and Merlin was a wizard.

But thats then just a fantasy setting as the things depicted in alot of legends and takes would have major impacts on the setting if there were as many of these oddities and treasures plaguing the land as stories tell. A setting based on real world Fantasy Legend is going to look like D&D and is not going to look like "medieval authentic" because just like D&D it cant.

In the medieval world, the only entity that would allow for "wandering" groups of people poking their noses in to all and sundry would be the if they belonged to and were backed by Church.

The biggest part of Medieval-authentic that isn't in the usual D&D game is Monotheism. Paganism has pretty much died out in most of Europe, and the Catholic Church has Cathedrals across half the continent while Islam is building mosques in the other half. It was where pretty much all the "learning" resided (Whether factual or not), provided another pole of power in the world (not military but spiritual power) and was a force that had to be at least placated, possibly joined with and definitely respected. People who belonged to the Church could travel to different countries and expect to be welcomed pretty much anywhere that there was a local vicar - as long as they could show they were deserving (on a pilgrimage, carrying a message, have a token from the local bishop, etc). Even just belonging to the Church would get them a bed for the night should one be available.

So most people grow up in a place where there is only one God, all others are false gods, the local church/mosque is the focus of their social life and even kings and nobles are fearful of its power. A medieval-style world that doesn't deal with this somehow won't be "authentic". And most D&D campaigns (at least published ones) are pantheistic and do not have this monolithic church organisation.

But if you do have one, you can imagine a typical D&D party being sent by the local Bishop to look into strange goings-on. Perhaps the wizard is a local witch-hunter, the thief has been given another chance (your penance is to serve the church for a year), the minstrel is along because the Bishop promised a look at some old scrolls and the fighter is sent by the local Lord to keep and eye on the Bishop! That's how I'd do an "authentic-medieval" standard D&D group. Plenty of built-in conflict too.

Just my 2p

Quote from: S'mon;1014502I believe "brigand" derives from brigandine, the standard professional soldier's armour of the later middle ages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine - roughly equivalent to D&D bandmail or splintmail. Anyone wearing brigandine could be a 'brigand'. :)

While I was confused about the words I doubt the armor has anything to do with brigands, supposedly it got popular in Europe (primarily Hungary) after the Mongol invasion, unless the name comes from the French 'brigand' in which case it just means brigand/ine  "foot soldier armor". Would also make more sense. In Hungarian the name for this armor is either "light mail" or "armor(ed) clothes" (páncélruha). Without further research on it I assume this armor originally just emulated the Mongolian lamellar designs. (although Byzantine lamellar / 'brigandine' armors were here before but seems they had to be 'reinvented')

Interesting is that I see various similar armor designs from before the Mongol invasion, such as the mentioned Byzantine ones, but also pre-Christian, migration period Hungarian heavier armor was supposed to be something like that, which would mean we also forgot (just as most of the traditional archery or the original, old alphabet "rovásírás") how to make and use it, and considering that happened to other bits of our original heritage while we began to mimic western Europe in many things it's entirelly possible. Well they got back into fashion here in less than a century after Mongols anyway.

(https://i.imgur.com/l2BdoM8.png)

Quote from: Omega;1014509A setting based on real world Fantasy Legend is going to look like D&D and is not going to look like "medieval authentic" because just like D&D it cant.

It would still look more like Earth than anything else. It would also mean the Catholic Church has real divine power, angels exist, and one should be worried over Islamic wars and djinni more (maybe even of things like real Ancient Egyptian mummy pharaohs returning)

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014463Ah, but there's a step further than that: the very nature of feudalism is that unless you're the Pope, you always have someone set above you -- however theoretically -- to which at the level best you have to take into consideration when making big political decisions.

Even the Pope, theoretically, has someone above him:).
And that someone might well be a cardinal who sponsored his election:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014466Depopulated does not mean "Untamed Land you have to conquer".  Aside from the very few predators, depopulated just means a logistical problem:  labor, resources, survival against the elements.  There's no humanoids, monsters or anything else actively stopping you, no matter what the people believe.

Actually, it might well mean exactly that. Especially if, say, a heretical sect has moved in and claimed it as its land - which happens.
But a single generation without humans does, in some parts of Europe, really mean "unatamed wilderness".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014486He doesn't like old school D&D.

This is not a problem.

He doesn't want anybody else to like it either.

This is a problem.

It's his problem, though;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1014515Actually, it might well mean exactly that. Especially if, say, a heretical sect has moved in and claimed it as its land - which happens.
But a single generation without humans does, in some parts of Europe, really mean "unatamed wilderness".

I will just say: Mongol invasion

It resulted in large areas of Hungary being depopulated. It was something like "untamed wilderness" (if you want to call ruined villages, empty fields and woods that) but was still part of Hungary on every map. Aristocracy invited foreign settlers and workers due to it, of which some good came (qualified German craftsmen) but also bad (invited Serbian and other slavic, Romanian, mostly Orthodox peasants with time became majority of the population which at the end led to cultural problems and the territorial loss for Hungary centuries later)

Probably many of you have already enough of my Hungarian examples and comparison, but this right here is the closest historical example for such a depopulated region in Europe I can think of close to the era in question. (unless we talk Black Plague)

Quote from: joriandrake;1014514It would still look more like Earth than anything else. It would also mean the Catholic Church has real divine power, angels exist, and one should be worried over Islamic wars and djinni more (maybe even of things like real Ancient Egyptian mummy pharaohs returning)

Except then its no longer real wold authentic because none of that really existed and if all the legends were true then the economy and ecology would look nothing like the real world and instead likely cleave closer to D&D.

Quote from: Omega;1014509But thats then just a fantasy setting as the things depicted in alot of legends and takes would have major impacts on the setting if there were as many of these oddities and treasures plaguing the land as stories tell. A setting based on real world Fantasy Legend is going to look like D&D and is not going to look like "medieval authentic" because just like D&D it cant.

So you don't actually have anything creative to add to this thread, then.

Quote from: Omega;1014509A setting based on real world Fantasy Legend is going to look like D&D and is not going to look like "medieval authentic" because just like D&D it cant.

It goes back to the fundamental interaction of tabletop roleplaying, the players describes what he doing while interacting with the setting and the referee adjudicates the result.  

The setting in which this takes place can be whatever I want to be including medieval authentic, historically accurate, completely made fantasy or any damn mix in between.

I can adjudicate this with Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha, AC, d20 to hit, Saves, and Hit Points as easily I can with ST, DX, IQ, HT, Defenses, 3d6 to hit, skills, advantages, and disadvantages. Or by using Skills, Aspects, Extras, and four dice marked with +, -, and nothing.

What matters is the setting you defined not the fucking rules. If the printed matter called the rulebook conflict with the logic of the setting then make a ruling on how the setting works and ignore what some author wrote a hundred miles away and twenty years ago. Where it make sense then use the rulebook. If the players complain tell them get their nose out of the rulebook and pay attention to the setting they are playing in.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014490I think you really are confusing "historical roleplaying" with "medieval-authentic roleplaying". They're not the same thing.
Medieval-Authentic roleplaying is fantasy. Historical roleplaying is the one that isn't.

Ok, so you're defining the term "Medieval Authentic" to already have made the choice to be fantasy instead of historical.  I was defining it one category up to encompass both.  If you're talking about Medieval-Authentic Fantasy, then yeah, the PCs in such a campaign drift a lot closer to their standard D&D brethren.

Also, like Asen said, if you include any form of Heretic, including Muslims, Mongols, etc, to be irredeemably evil like humanoids are frequently portrayed, then things get even closer.

But, wandering groups of monster-slayers, exorcists, witch-hunters and all forms of Satan-fighters, will still need to be sanctioned by the Church unless they want to get burned at the stake themselves.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014579But, wandering groups of monster-slayers, exorcists, witch-hunters and all forms of Satan-fighters, will still need to be sanctioned by the Church unless they want to get burned at the stake themselves.

That too modern. What important that the PCs have connections and patrons. It could be the Church, it could be a Duke, or a merchant house. The specifics will of course flavor the circumstances under which the PCs operate. But the medieval era was very local with a lot of variations off of a theme kind of things going on. Largely because much it rested on the personalities of individuals rather than institutions.

There are so many ways in which this sort of campaign can be run, and so many things you could do as players, I don't understand why anyone would feel they have to search for that one special way it might 'work'. We are discussing additions and changes to one family of gaming systems ('D&D-ish') so that the landscape looks a bit more like the way medieval people seem to have thought. That doesn't fundamentally change what table top gaming is about.

Also, there are sooooo many games out there that have played with the concepts in Lion and Dragon, and many were successful, well liked games that no one had trouble figuring out how to play. A few obvious ones:

Chivalry and Sorcery
Harnmaster
Ars Magica
Pendragon
GURPS (Middle Ages, Real Thaumatology, etc.)
Supplements for 2E and 3E D+D

Among others.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014486He doesn't like old school D&D.

This is not a problem.

He doesn't want anybody else to like it either.

This is a problem.

You like to move goal posts around don't you?  You must be amazingly buff.

However, no.  Because Old School, as I understand it, is mostly about replicating the late 70's and early 80's dungeon crawls, then wandering up back to a village and selling off the loot for experience.  You are free agents, unbeholden to anyone save yourself.

This 'Medieval Authentic' is not 'old school' from what I've gotten by your posts, Gronan. Among others.  It's the story driven 'Story games' thing that most people here seem to hate on.

And the Dungeon Crawl is the more or less the same model that various later editions of D&D still work in terms of setting conceits.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014607You must be amazingly buff.

Why yes, I am.  Thanks for noticing.  * flex *

:D

Quote from: Omega;1014564Except then its no longer real wold authentic because none of that really existed and if all the legends were true then the economy and ecology would look nothing like the real world and instead likely cleave closer to D&D.

This assumes that there are two options: real-world history and D&D, and any difference away from the real-world takes things towards D&D.  However, really there are a huge variety of different legends which can take things in all sorts of wild directions - many of which are radically different from D&D.  A game based on Germanic folk tales will differ quite a bit from a game based on Chaucer, which will differ from Icelandic historical tales. Even within a single culture, there are wildly different genres: like how James Bond is quite different from Sherlock Holmes.

For example, I've played a number of campaigns set in Harn - which has vast differences from historical Europe, but also has vast differences from D&D.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014579Ok, so you're defining the term "Medieval Authentic" to already have made the choice to be fantasy instead of historical.  I was defining it one category up to encompass both.  If you're talking about Medieval-Authentic Fantasy, then yeah, the PCs in such a campaign drift a lot closer to their standard D&D brethren.

Also, like Asen said, if you include any form of Heretic, including Muslims, Mongols, etc, to be irredeemably evil like humanoids are frequently portrayed, then things get even closer.

But, wandering groups of monster-slayers, exorcists, witch-hunters and all forms of Satan-fighters, will still need to be sanctioned by the Church unless they want to get burned at the stake themselves.

I disagree with the obedience to the Church. It varies a lot depending on where and when you are talking about. There is a huge difference between Saxony in 800 and France in 1500, for example. Everyone believed in God, but particularly in the early medieval period, obedience to the Church was often cursory at best. Often, it was only when heresies got very popular and/or very extreme that the Church stepped in - and it didn't always win, like the period of dueling popes in the 1300s.

Particularly if one's game is set in fringe areas far from Rome - like Hungary post-Mongols as joriandrake suggested - then the Church is a pretty distant and abstract idea.

For example, regarding Muslims, there was a huge amount of trade between Christians and Muslims. There were hostilities as well, but there were a number of cosmopolitan cities where people of various faiths worked side by side. Going by selected works from the late medieval era, one might get the impression of pure evil - but we can see from records at the time that there were tons of Muslim ships peacefully coming into Christian ports and vice-versa.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014416No.  Really, I'm trying to suss out the different underlying campaign assumptions that would exist in a Medieval-Authentic campaign, and how that would fundamentally and dramatically change the adventuring paradigm and I'm giving the site historians with letters after their name in history a chance to expound.

Well, your timing is poor.  It's the end of the semester and I'm up to my neck in term papers so this thread will likely be dead by the time I have time to contribute.

A couple of quick points:

1) As Ravenwing, a few others and myself has pointed out, the medieval period was not some static monolithic society where all the commonly held generalizations we've learned from middle school and reinforced by Hollywood are universal and unalterable.  To the contrary, there was vast diversity in medieval European society.  If you want a certain type of game, there is enough room under the umbrella of "medieval" to cover it, whether that's  the clash of religions, cultures, or civilizations, political intrigue, pirates, quests, survival, mystery or Armageddon - its all there.

2)  The main point that is under-emphasized on this thread is the importance of religion.

3) In general, everybody served somebody, and that is a feature, but it is not entirely ubiquitous either.  Lots of examples can be found of people living outside the imagined order.  And feudalism was never as simple as imagined. In fact, there were many forms and variations of feudal societies, often existing side by side, and in many places and times feudalism was only partially achieved.  Even in France, feudalism began to break down before it reached complete fruition.  To say that everyone in the middle ages was stuck in a rigid unalterable social hierarchy is like saying everyone in modern society is free.   It's a generalization and exceptions abound.

4) Travel and trade was much more common than is taught in your high school textbooks.

5) There were borderlands everywhere, and a few untamed wildernesses - in some periods more than others.

6) Human foes are incredibly diverse and dangerous.  Trolls and dragons have nothing on them.

7) From a character's perspective, magic and monsters should be real.

8) And to paraphrase Gronan, any slice of history is vastly richer and deeper than any imagined fantasy world could ever be, it's just not as accessible.

Quote from: jhkim;1014457Being criminals is often a matter of perspective. Particularly in times of political instability, criminals can turn into upstanding citizens and back again several times.

In that respect they are like pirates.
   

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014488If you define 'master' vaguely enough, that would be true of any RPG.

If you define 'master' more strictly, then he's wrong, even in the list he quoted.

Exactly. This sort of reductionism is similar to folks who claim that all D&D PCs are murder hobos. Murderers because sometimes they kill people during an adventure. Hobos because they don't stay at home in the same place all the time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014608Why yes, I am.  Thanks for noticing.  * flex *

:D

Welcome, but you're still wrong about my supposed 'dislike'.  I don't hate any version of D&D, I still play it, and unlike you, I don't differentiate between editions beyond the rules changes.  It's all versions of D&D, some I just like more than others.

It seems like an odd modernish notion to me that everyone in actual medieval times needed a master and an official reason for doing something at all times, couldn't travel, etc.

It seems to me that, particularly outside the small region where people know your face and/or coat of arms, mostly the level of risk faced was about the same as just being a traveler. As long as people weren't conspicuous in looking strange, dangerous, or worth robbing, or looking for certain types of interactions or behaving problematically,  my impression from reading accounts of specific events is that people could (and many did) wander about doing fairly random (mis)adventures fairly commonly. Certainly there were plenty of idle folk, wastrels, entertainers, squatters and beggars and hermits and pilgrims and messengers and traders and so on that unless someone knew them, no one had any way to verify their story except by their words and appearances. As long as you look like/behave like something plausible and not dangerous, heinous or tempting, you'll probably be allowed to go about doing harmless things. People will likely be curious and ask, but as long as your story is harmless and you don't arouse too much suspicion and attention, I wouldn't expect more than adventure-level unwanted attention.

Quote from: Skarg;1014732It seems like an odd modernish notion to me that everyone in actual medieval times needed a master and an official reason for doing something at all times, couldn't travel, etc.

It seems to me that, particularly outside the small region where people know your face and/or coat of arms, mostly the level of risk faced was about the same as just being a traveler. As long as people weren't conspicuous in looking strange, dangerous, or worth robbing, or looking for certain types of interactions or behaving problematically,  my impression from reading accounts of specific events is that people could (and many did) wander about doing fairly random (mis)adventures fairly commonly. Certainly there were plenty of idle folk, wastrels, entertainers, squatters and beggars and hermits and pilgrims and messengers and traders and so on that unless someone knew them, no one had any way to verify their story except by their words and appearances. As long as you look like/behave like something plausible and not dangerous, heinous or tempting, you'll probably be allowed to go about doing harmless things. People will likely be curious and ask, but as long as your story is harmless and you don't arouse too much suspicion and attention, I wouldn't expect more than adventure-level unwanted attention.

Ah, but you touch on something here.  The 'travelers' you mention are often seen as harmless, or not worth bothering because they don't look rich.  However, adventurers look dangerous from the word go, especially priests and warriors, who are clad in armour and weapons.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014568So you don't actually have anything creative to add to this thread, then.

I did that a few pages and threads ago. Pay attention please.

A medieval authentic setting can be alot of fun. But Im sure as hell not going to agree that "real world, but with monsters and magic!" is medieval authentic. Because it isnt. We went over this back in those historical threads.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014741Ah, but you touch on something here.  The 'travelers' you mention are often seen as harmless, or not worth bothering because they don't look rich.  However, adventurers look dangerous from the word go, especially priests and warriors, who are clad in armour and weapons.

That sounds like an adventuring challenge to me. So to be aware of such things, and take appropriate measures, is an interesting natural part of the setting. The prudent adventurer may want to go incognito meaning that whether they go about in armor or not depending on where they are, etc., which can be an interesting game decision with consequences, etc.

Quote from: Skarg;1014732It seems like an odd modernish notion to me that everyone in actual medieval times needed a master and an official reason for doing something at all times, couldn't travel, etc.

Rootless vagabonds aside the expectation was that everybody had a master and that they would mention their master as part of identifying who they are. So anyone who doesn't want to be looked on with suspicion will need to include "and my master is ______" when identifying themselves. Of course they could lie and depending on how plausible the lie was it would be believed. It's not like anyone in the Holy Roman Empire had an easy way to verify the name, much less the existence, of a master who was some baron in Cornwall, Bishop in Salisbury, or merchant in York.

Quote from: Skarg;1014732As long as you look like/behave like something plausible and not dangerous, heinous or tempting, you'll probably be allowed to go about doing harmless things.

Emphasis mine.

Travelers needed to fit expectations, or they were going to get hassled.  I quite agree that messengers, prepared to explain their bonafides, weren't particularly bothered.  I quite agree that a band of pilgrims, traveling a known pilgrimage route to a known pilgrimage site, weren't particularly bothered.  A half-dozen armed guards weren't out of place while they were also with a half-dozen pack animals, a couple of merchants, and a heap of trade goods.  A couple wandering jongleurs, appropriately accoutered and doing the things wandering jongleurs did, would be treated as such.

The concept of fitting expectations is something a lot of gamers have trouble wrapping their heads around.  They're used to going where they want, armed as they please, answering to no one and bristling at explaining their business.  No one's saying "if you didn't have an official reason for traveling you weren't allowed to do so."  But heck ... within my lifetime, if you were a tough-looking sod with no apparent business just loitering around the small town where I spent my formative years, within about a day the chief of police would drop in to ask your business, and the length of your stay was materially impacted by whether he liked your answer (and, no doubt, by the color of your skin, your accent, how well you were dressed and how nice your car was).  This isn't all that bizarre a concept.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014781Travelers needed to fit expectations, or they were going to get hassled.

Exactly.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014781But heck ... within my lifetime, if you were a tough-looking sod with no apparent business just loitering around the small town where I spent my formative years, within about a day the chief of police would drop in to ask your business, and the length of your stay was materially impacted by whether he liked your answer (and, no doubt, by the color of your skin, your accent, how well you were dressed and how nice your car was).  This isn't all that bizarre a concept.

Back in High School we often played D&D at one person's home on the weekends or in the summer until around dawn. Several times we were stopped on the way home by the local police in the suburban town where I lived. That it was a short stop was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that I did live in that town. (And hence I belonged there and had a reason for being a teenager wandering about at an unusual hour.) Had we all been non-residents the stop might not have been anywhere near as brief nor as friendly.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014579Ok, so you're defining the term "Medieval Authentic" to already have made the choice to be fantasy instead of historical.  I was defining it one category up to encompass both.  If you're talking about Medieval-Authentic Fantasy, then yeah, the PCs in such a campaign drift a lot closer to their standard D&D brethren.

He is defining it that way, it's kinda obvious from the book. I mean, magisters can produce homunculi and golems, how many more hints do you need:D?

QuoteAlso, like Asen said, if you include any form of Heretic, including Muslims, Mongols, etc, to be irredeemably evil like humanoids are frequently portrayed, then things get even closer.

Wrong, they're not irredeemably evil in the Middle Ages.
You can get them to accept Christianity;). No such saving graces for Orcs, AFAIK!

QuoteBut, wandering groups of monster-slayers, exorcists, witch-hunters and all forms of Satan-fighters, will still need to be sanctioned by the Church unless they want to get burned at the stake themselves.

Not necessarily.
The Earl would do just fine:p!

Quote from: estar;1014581That too modern. What important that the PCs have connections and patrons. It could be the Church, it could be a Duke, or a merchant house. The specifics will of course flavor the circumstances under which the PCs operate. But the medieval era was very local with a lot of variations off of a theme kind of things going on. Largely because much it rested on the personalities of individuals rather than institutions.

Yes, though the merchant house's influence, and hence the protection it offers, would fall more sharply with distance.
 

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014604There are so many ways in which this sort of campaign can be run, and so many things you could do as players, I don't understand why anyone would feel they have to search for that one special way it might 'work'. We are discussing additions and changes to one family of gaming systems ('D&D-ish') so that the landscape looks a bit more like the way medieval people seem to have thought. That doesn't fundamentally change what table top gaming is about.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1014636Well, your timing is poor.  It's the end of the semester and I'm up to my neck in term papers so this thread will likely be dead by the time I have time to contribute.

A couple of quick points:

1) As Ravenwing, a few others and myself has pointed out, the medieval period was not some static monolithic society where all the commonly held generalizations we've learned from middle school and reinforced by Hollywood are universal and unalterable.  To the contrary, there was vast diversity in medieval European society.  If you want a certain type of game, there is enough room under the umbrella of "medieval" to cover it, whether that's  the clash of religions, cultures, or civilizations, political intrigue, pirates, quests, survival, mystery or Armageddon - its all there.

2)  The main point that is under-emphasized on this thread is the importance of religion.

3) In general, everybody served somebody, and that is a feature, but it is not entirely ubiquitous either.  Lots of examples can be found of people living outside the imagined order.  And feudalism was never as simple as imagined. In fact, there were many forms and variations of feudal societies, often existing side by side, and in many places and times feudalism was only partially achieved.  Even in France, feudalism began to break down before it reached complete fruition.  To say that everyone in the middle ages was stuck in a rigid unalterable social hierarchy is like saying everyone in modern society is free.   It's a generalization and exceptions abound.

4) Travel and trade was much more common than is taught in your high school textbooks.

5) There were borderlands everywhere, and a few untamed wildernesses - in some periods more than others.

6) Human foes are incredibly diverse and dangerous.  Trolls and dragons have nothing on them.

7) From a character's perspective, magic and monsters should be real.

8) And to paraphrase Gronan, any slice of history is vastly richer and deeper than any imagined fantasy world could ever be, it's just not as accessible.

Yes, except with an addendum to 8) that says "unless you take the time to visit the library, in which case, you'd have vastly superior amounts and quality of information"

Quote from: Skarg;1014732It seems like an odd modernish notion to me that everyone in actual medieval times needed a master and an official reason for doing something at all times, couldn't travel, etc.

No, not really.

Quote from: Bren;1014779Rootless vagabonds aside the expectation was that everybody had a master and that they would mention their master as part of identifying who they are. So anyone who doesn't want to be looked on with suspicion will need to include "and my master is ______" when identifying themselves. Of course they could lie and depending on how plausible the lie was it would be believed. It's not like anyone in the Holy Roman Empire had an easy way to verify the name, much less the existence, of a master who was some baron in Cornwall, Bishop in Salisbury, or merchant in York.

Yes, and moreso, one should keep in mind that lying might require you to produce the exact names of said patron, along with his relatives. Many landed nobles would have relatives all over the country, so you might be unwittingly poising as the servant of a nephew of the man who's interrogating you:).

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014781Emphasis mine.

Travelers needed to fit expectations, or they were going to get hassled.  I quite agree that messengers, prepared to explain their bonafides, weren't particularly bothered.  I quite agree that a band of pilgrims, traveling a known pilgrimage route to a known pilgrimage site, weren't particularly bothered.  A half-dozen armed guards weren't out of place while they were also with a half-dozen pack animals, a couple of merchants, and a heap of trade goods.  A couple wandering jongleurs, appropriately accoutered and doing the things wandering jongleurs did, would be treated as such.

The concept of fitting expectations is something a lot of gamers have trouble wrapping their heads around.  They're used to going where they want, armed as they please, answering to no one and bristling at explaining their business.  No one's saying "if you didn't have an official reason for traveling you weren't allowed to do so."  But heck ... within my lifetime, if you were a tough-looking sod with no apparent business just loitering around the small town where I spent my formative years, within about a day the chief of police would drop in to ask your business, and the length of your stay was materially impacted by whether he liked your answer (and, no doubt, by the color of your skin, your accent, how well you were dressed and how nice your car was).  This isn't all that bizarre a concept.

This, except that "treated as jongleurs" would often include "robbed":D!

Quote from: Bren;1014786Exactly.

Back in High School we often played D&D at one person's home on the weekends or in the summer until around dawn. Several times we were stopped on the way home by the local police in the suburban town where I lived. That it was a short stop was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that I did live in that town. (And hence I belonged there and had a reason for being a teenager wandering about at an unusual hour.) Had we all been non-residents the stop might not have been anywhere near as brief nor as friendly.

Yeah, this too;).

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014781Travelers needed to fit expectations, or they were going to get hassled.  I quite agree that messengers, prepared to explain their bonafides, weren't particularly bothered.  I quite agree that a band of pilgrims, traveling a known pilgrimage route to a known pilgrimage site, weren't particularly bothered.  A half-dozen armed guards weren't out of place while they were also with a half-dozen pack animals, a couple of merchants, and a heap of trade goods.  A couple wandering jongleurs, appropriately accoutered and doing the things wandering jongleurs did, would be treated as such.

The concept of fitting expectations is something a lot of gamers have trouble wrapping their heads around.  They're used to going where they want, armed as they please, answering to no one and bristling at explaining their business.  No one's saying "if you didn't have an official reason for traveling you weren't allowed to do so."  But heck ... within my lifetime, if you were a tough-looking sod with no apparent business just loitering around the small town where I spent my formative years, within about a day the chief of police would drop in to ask your business, and the length of your stay was materially impacted by whether he liked your answer (and, no doubt, by the color of your skin, your accent, how well you were dressed and how nice your car was).  This isn't all that bizarre a concept.

That's not the part that I think is off. The part I think is off is concluding that adventuring is going to be restricted or un-fun in an authentic medieval setting, rather than that part of the game would sometimes involve not attracting unwanted attention. Also acting like it was hard to go around getting up to various adventures and doing stuff more or less at will except for having to deal with people sometimes in various ways, which would just be part of play. I've read quite a few accounts of people's lives and stories in the time, and I am not off-hand thinking of any tales where someone was detained for not declaring a master or not having a good excuse to be someplace, unless they were also a runaway child or otherwise being conspicuous.

It seems like one approach to the issue would be for the GM (and/or a game system such as Lion & Dragon) to enumerate such concerns in each setting - what situations/behavior will get you in what trouble where - and then also map that to what characters of what social class and ability will know about those and have trouble or facility dealing with them or not. It seems to me that in many cases, a relatively well-raised person  would be able to know how to behave so as not to get into trouble traveling about.

For example, St. Francis of Assisi was the son of a merchant who had all sorts of opportunity for adventure. He tried being a soldier, trying to become a knight, debauchery, vagrancy, travel, squatting, and then of course rebuilding a disused church, confronting the local clergy, starting his own monastic brotherhood more or less out of thin air and inspiration, doing all sorts of monkey business, going off on crusades, etc etc. He thought he'd probably be martyred for trying to talk to the enemy sovereign on the crusades, but didn't, etc. As for the "master" concept, he short-cut it by answering directly to God, which worked, though even before he got religion, I don't remember much opposition to going about doing whatever except for parental disapproval, which didn't even result in being disowned until he found God and tried to give away his dad's valuables and embarrassed him.

Quote from: Bren;1014786Back in High School we often played D&D at one person's home on the weekends or in the summer until around dawn. Several times we were stopped on the way home by the local police in the suburban town where I lived. That it was a short stop was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that I did live in that town. (And hence I belonged there and had a reason for being a teenager wandering about at an unusual hour.) Had we all been non-residents the stop might not have been anywhere near as brief nor as friendly.

I suppose it depends on where you live. When I was a teen, I lived in a city but knew quite a few suburban teens who temporarily or permanently fled their suburban homes to live with other teens in the city or even on the street. And we stayed out through the night routinely getting up to all sorts of things and were only very occasionally questioned by the police, who had no reason to really do anything to us and let us go.

Quote from: Skarg;1014807That's not the part that I think is off. The part I think is off is concluding that adventuring is going to be restricted or un-fun in an authentic medieval setting, rather than that part of the game would sometimes involve not attracting unwanted attention. Also acting like it was hard to go around getting up to various adventures and doing stuff more or less at will except for having to deal with people sometimes in various ways, which would just be part of play. I've read quite a few accounts of people's lives and stories in the time, and I am not off-hand thinking of any tales where someone was detained for not declaring a master or not having a good excuse to be someplace, unless they were also a runaway child or otherwise being conspicuous.

I've read quite a few, in contemporary legal documents and letters.  Of course the average biography won't feature the hero lipping off to the reeve or the abbot, and duly getting beaten and thrown into a ditch to die, the end; the St. Francises of the world overcome or are above such things.

As with other parts of the thread, I join in finding this a feature, not a bug.  Probably a number of gamers would find working around/with the constraints of the culture unfun, but to each his or her own!

I too was thinking L&D and other "medieval authentic" RP was actually "historical" RP, but it is interesting to consider what a world where those medieval myths were actually true would look like. Does this mean L&D has a monster manual for stuff like dragons?

Quote from: Skarg;1014809I suppose it depends on where you live.

I think location often does make a big difference. Where I lived then was an affluent suburb (adjacent to a city). Part of the reason for having the police was to prevent outsiders from burgling houses. That and writing speeding tickets. But 3AM-6AM was not a prime time for speedtraps so pulling cars over seemed a popular wee-hours policing activity.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014811I've read quite a few, in contemporary legal documents and letters.  Of course the average biography won't feature the hero lipping off to the reeve or the abbot, and duly getting beaten and thrown into a ditch to die, the end; the St. Francises of the world overcome or are above such things.

At a minimum they lived to tell the tale.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014604I don't understand why anyone would feel they have to search for that one special way it might 'work'.

Neither do I, which is why that's not what this thread is about.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014604That doesn't fundamentally change what table top gaming is about.

No, but it does change some of the default assumptions that go along with standard D&D settings/D&D fantasy.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014605Also, there are sooooo many games out there that have played with the concepts in Lion and Dragon, and many were successful, well liked games that no one had trouble figuring out how to play. A few obvious ones:

Chivalry and Sorcery
Harnmaster
Ars Magica
Pendragon
GURPS (Middle Ages, Real Thaumatology, etc.)
Supplements for 2E and 3E D+D

You mean all those games older than some adult gamers, from the years when your average Roleplayer was a historical wargamer with a library card and not a videogamer? :D

@whoever - Europe has absolutely no "Untamed Land" in D&D or fantasy terms meaning you have to clear it with sword and battleaxe, not woodaxe and shovel, and thus no frontier by the same definition.

Now, if you want to call Fantasy Europe with Trolls, Ogres, Giants, Werewolves, Vampires, etc... then things obviously get different.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014833Neither do I, which is why that's not what this thread is about.

No, but it does change some of the default assumptions that go along with standard D&D settings/D&D fantasy.

You mean all those games older than some adult gamers, from the years when your average Roleplayer was a historical wargamer with a library card and not a videogamer? :D

Half of these are in print and the other half were in print in the 2000's and remain widely available.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014837Half of these are in print and the other half were in print in the 2000's and remain widely available.

I'm just saying, without being derisive towards them, that there just might be some people for who all this medieval-life stuff isn't a professional or personal focus of study or who haven't done this a hundred times and that 'Nah, it's pretty much the same' is doing them more of a disservice than actually teaching them the information so that they can understand as well as everybody else does.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014835@whoever - Europe has absolutely no "Untamed Land" in D&D or fantasy terms meaning you have to clear it with sword and battleaxe, not woodaxe and shovel, and thus no frontier by the same definition.

The Teutonic Knights disagree.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014835Now, if you want to call Fantasy Europe with Trolls, Ogres, Giants, Werewolves, Vampires, etc... then things obviously get different.

Not as much as you would think. Put trolls and giants as example into Scandinavia:

[video=youtube;4bDD-CaUkk8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDD-CaUkk8[/youtube]

Their 'natural habitat'

Do the same with ogres, place them into French territory (or rather, Frankish Empire territory), or if you want also as Oni into Japan
Vampires? Carpathian/Hungarian, or Cuman/Avar (NOT Romanian), or in Asia place them into India ( Brahmarakshasa)
Werewolves? Almost everywhere in Europe but mostly Germanic lands (Southern Germany) and Greece (Werwulf-Weriwolf/lukánthropos)

Other kind of were-kin have their 'natural habitat' elsewhere in the world.


As for 'untamed lands', Europeans considered only non-Christian, non-Muslim territory 'untamed' (or unclaimed). Which led to things like the Baltic Crusade and the Teutonic Order's domain. Otherwise you do have harsh or 'empty' lands (depopulated) but Christian realms did more or less accept each others claims (unless fought over in war) and declared borders. Playing as example new saxon colonists in Hungarian Transylvania (after Mongol  invasion) with rights and land offered by Royal decree would still be a fun campaign I think. (could have beasts, mythical beings other than vampires and actual vampire in such a place, also ghosts of dead villagers or mongol warriors)

If you embrace 'Medieval authentic' low fantasy in your setting it still can have dragons, wandering Papal-sanctioned hunters and Inquisitors fighting werewolves and possessed people. (although major beasts like dragons would be damn rare and werewolves would hide among normal people, like most creatures) It would be more closer to the Witcher & Game of Thrones than to D&D or similar, NPCs and PCs would still require to fit somehow in the classic medieval society as discussed earlier.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014835@whoever - Europe has absolutely no "Untamed Land" in D&D or fantasy terms meaning you have to clear it with sword and battleaxe, not woodaxe and shovel, and thus no frontier by the same definition.

In December 2017, yeah, there's probably not much you'd need to clear by way of sword or battleaxe.  (Rather more with woodaxe or shovel.)

That being said, sheesh ... thought it was already stipulated, but anyone who claims "Europe is/isn't X" for damn near anything throughout the entire medieval period is a nincompoop.  Swedish crusades against various northern tribes ran right into the Renaissance and then some.

Beyond that, I'd be interested in where one can find the authoritative definition of "Untamed Land in D&D or fantasy terms" ... I'm thinking that it's something less of a generally accepted dictum as all of that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014835@whoever - Europe has absolutely no "Untamed Land" in D&D or fantasy terms meaning you have to clear it with sword and battleaxe, not woodaxe and shovel, and thus no frontier by the same definition.

That incorrect it depends on the time period and circumstance. For example the decades after the Black Death saw a lot of land abandoned. When the population started growing again a century or two later it had to be reclaimed with woodaxe and shovel. As mentioned the Teutonic Knight had their own thing going with the settlement of the Baltic only with the native baltic tribes instead of American Indians. The horse collar allowed rich but hard to work river bottom land to exploited and so forth and so on.

But you are absolutely correct when it comes places like Northern France with a high population density.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1014866In December 2017, yeah, there's probably not much you'd need to clear by way of sword or battleaxe.  (Rather more with woodaxe or shovel.)

That being said, sheesh ... thought it was already stipulated, but anyone who claims "Europe is/isn't X" for damn near anything throughout the entire medieval period is a nincompoop.  Swedish crusades against various northern tribes ran right into the Renaissance and then some.

Beyond that, I'd be interested in where one can find the authoritative definition of "Untamed Land in D&D or fantasy terms" ... I'm thinking that it's something less of a generally accepted dictum as all of that.

That's the context in light of the 'how are things different from D&D fantasy'.  I thought people would get the context that 'Frontier' and 'Untamed' meant Keep on the Borderlands or The Pomarj as opposed to the Teutonics/Templars exterminating Pagans/Muslims.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014885That's the context in light of the 'how are things different from D&D fantasy'.  I thought people would get the context that 'Frontier' and 'Untamed' meant Keep on the Borderlands or The Pomarj as opposed to the Teutonics/Templars exterminating Pagans/Muslims.

But the Pomarj and the Borderlands ares populated by "pagan" i.e. the humanoid tribes. Except for oddball places like Iceland in the 7th or 8th century. There are humans everywhere to be encounter as on group goes from point A to point B. In most D&D setting I know there are sentient culture forming being also everywhere where humans go.

13th century Northern France is what you are thinking about when you say no frontier untamed, again the condition in Northern France do not hold throughout Europe in space or time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014885That's the context in light of the 'how are things different from D&D fantasy'.  I thought people would get the context that 'Frontier' and 'Untamed' meant Keep on the Borderlands or The Pomarj as opposed to the Teutonics/Templars exterminating Pagans/Muslims.

The brutal borderland conflicts of the Livonian Order exterminating the Wends, the Carolingians pushing back the Saxons or the Sorbs, or any of a hundred other examples could be seen as a clash of civilizations (complete with cultural relativism) as you are doing here, or it can be seen as civilization vs the chaos that existed beyond the frontier - which, though politically incorrect today, is much closer to how they would have seen it at the time.  

Imagine standing atop the battlements of a hastily constructed wooden fortress, on the very edge of Christendom, overlooking an endless forest full of full of godless heathens living like beasts among the trees, and God knows what else, your head full of stories of witches, wolves and trolls. I think it is very much like Keep on the Boarderlands.

Medieval games work best when you make them Alternate History (even in a subtle sense).  This releases the players from a lot of the burden of history and lets them take centre stage and you can do cool plots like trying to take the English throne by restoring a house exiled to Burgundy, rigging papal elections, setting out on an expedition to find the Kingdom of Prester John or defending Constantinople from attacks by Timur the Lane.

Quote from: Omega;1014507Thats very YMMV. Not everyone wants to play a setting even bleaker than Warhammer and Dark Sun combined where you are likely under someones thumb one way or another and if you are a soldier or frequent combat type your life expectancy may be all of one battle before you die of infection. Or you might survive many. But are possibly allso pretty dinged up.

Except that's not how anyone should envision Medieval-Authentic gaming.  It would be closer, if you must make comparisons, to Game of Thrones than to either Warhammer or Dark Sun.

Quote from: spon;1014512In the medieval world, the only entity that would allow for "wandering" groups of people poking their noses in to all and sundry would be the if they belonged to and were backed by Church.

The biggest part of Medieval-authentic that isn't in the usual D&D game is Monotheism. Paganism has pretty much died out in most of Europe, and the Catholic Church has Cathedrals across half the continent while Islam is building mosques in the other half. It was where pretty much all the "learning" resided (Whether factual or not), provided another pole of power in the world (not military but spiritual power) and was a force that had to be at least placated, possibly joined with and definitely respected. People who belonged to the Church could travel to different countries and expect to be welcomed pretty much anywhere that there was a local vicar - as long as they could show they were deserving (on a pilgrimage, carrying a message, have a token from the local bishop, etc). Even just belonging to the Church would get them a bed for the night should one be available.

So most people grow up in a place where there is only one God, all others are false gods, the local church/mosque is the focus of their social life and even kings and nobles are fearful of its power. A medieval-style world that doesn't deal with this somehow won't be "authentic". And most D&D campaigns (at least published ones) are pantheistic and do not have this monolithic church organisation.

But if you do have one, you can imagine a typical D&D party being sent by the local Bishop to look into strange goings-on. Perhaps the wizard is a local witch-hunter, the thief has been given another chance (your penance is to serve the church for a year), the minstrel is along because the Bishop promised a look at some old scrolls and the fighter is sent by the local Lord to keep and eye on the Bishop! That's how I'd do an "authentic-medieval" standard D&D group. Plenty of built-in conflict too.

Just my 2p

You are VERY correct about the importance of Monotheism. That's why both Dark Albion and Lion & Dragon make a big deal of monotheism. And the Church.

You're also right that the Church was a great type of employer for people moving around.

But you're not right in that it's somehow the 'only' way that happened.  While the vast majority of people never left more than a few miles from their place of birth, there were a significant number of people who traveled all over the place, without being agents of the church.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1014579But, wandering groups of monster-slayers, exorcists, witch-hunters and all forms of Satan-fighters, will still need to be sanctioned by the Church unless they want to get burned at the stake themselves.

Not strictly true. They could be agents of Crown authority. They could even be acting under their own authority, though in that case they'd be looked at with a good deal more scrutiny.

Quote from: Bren;1014779Rootless vagabonds aside the expectation was that everybody had a master and that they would mention their master as part of identifying who they are. So anyone who doesn't want to be looked on with suspicion will need to include "and my master is ______" when identifying themselves.

That's not true at all.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1014814I too was thinking L&D and other "medieval authentic" RP was actually "historical" RP, but it is interesting to consider what a world where those medieval myths were actually true would look like. Does this mean L&D has a monster manual for stuff like dragons?

It has a monster chapter, which has medieval-authentic treatment of monsters, in the sense of depicting them in ways based on medieval folklore.

Regarding travel, I make it clear in Dark Albion that the likelihood of being bothered by local authorities if you're traveling is mainly based on whether you are visibly armed and armored. If you're going around armed to the teeth, you're likely to be assumed to be brigands (unless of course your party has a Cleric or a noble).

Of course, in times/regions of war or anarchy, that becomes potentially less of a problem, except when going through heavily-armed areas where you could be perceived as enemy agents.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014938That's not true at all.

So who were all those respectable people beholden to none yet settled and part of society? And what did they do for a living?

Quote from: Bren;1014986So who were all those respectable people beholden to none yet settled and part of society? And what did they do for a living?

Unless I'm mistaken Pundit's reaction was to "...will need to include "and my master is ______" when identifying themselves."

You can do introductions like: "I'm Brother Joseph" is usually enough to place him as part of clergy, especially if wearing monk robes. If he wants to be more specific it could include "...of the Franciscan Ordo Fratrum Minorum from Narbonne" especially when meeting others from local clergy or nobility. A short introduction and/or naming your destination will be enough.

Same for nobility and knights. "I'm Sir Roland and on my way to meet with your liege." This should be enough for a town guard to make it clear the man has enough status and reason to travel. The meeting would probably end with the guard bowing to the knight and excusing himself to bother the Sir on his journey. When meeting the local lord he would however most likely go into more details. "I'm Roland of House Eszterházy from the Kingdom of Hungary on my way to join a jousting tournament." In case he meets a higher than himself ranked noble or royalty he would probably be even more specific. "I'm Roland of House Eszterházy, Lord of Galánta, from the Kingdom of Hungary, knight of Ordo Draconum. Here to accept your invitation to the upcoming tournament in the name of my family and to represent our Coat of Arms at the games."

I made it intentional to use Sir in one case and not in another because while nobility and knighthood didn't mean the same in some realms in others they were interchangeable. He would by commonfolk probably get called 'Lord' either way.

Sometimes of course it makes sense to tell who 'your master' is. Perhaps a line like this. "I'm a Hunter for the Holy Church, and on the order of His Holiness here to investigate the recent disappearances." Not many would continue to question you or ask for your full name, although you might have to prove your statement with some document. In this specific example you indeed identify your reason to be somewhere while avoiding to designate yourself as anything else than a tool on a divine mission.

Usually I don't think you actually need any introduction. If you walk with a staff in monk robes you will be considered a monk and not get asked by anyone, you will probably be already called 'Brother' if addressed at all. A warrior in heavy mail with a shield bearing a Coat of Arms will be considered a noble or knight right away, at least as long the gear is kept in good condition. Unless he looks like coming from a recent battle or his armor is rusty and/or damaged, patched up there shouldn't be a reason why common people would think the armed guy is a bandit, even if he might be a lawful robber baron/Raubritter from the HRE he would still be above commoners. No one except nobles would be able to buy such armor.

Medieval era Europe is probably the easiest to blend in as far disguises and acting are concerned. Social structure is strong and clear enough to be simply understood for the lowest peasants while not regulated/coordinated enough on the continent to make it easy to spot a prepared charlatan. (there are no ID-s or birth certificates in most places, and can take decades until identity is confirmed when you disguise yourself as someone from a distant realm)

Quote from: Bren;1014986So who were all those respectable people beholden to none yet settled and part of society? And what did they do for a living?

A 85% chance they are farming. Every society in western and central Europe had freeholders. People who owned the land they worked and had no feudal overlord. The closet Europe had to a perfect feudal society was England after the conquest but only because King William was able to reshuffle things after Hastings and later the Harrying of the North. Even then it wasn't a case of every man had a master.

For more read about Forty Shilling FreeHolders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-shilling_freeholders). So who received a rent or taxes equal to or in excess of 480 silver pieces (or pennies) a year.

Now and this is key, while not every man had a master. The expectation was that people paid their respects to their betters.

Elsewhere it was a complex melange of local customs overlaying the specific historical circumstances of the regions. Northern Italy hardly had any feudal period. Germany had it own thing, As well as France. And then there is Spain, if you want to talk about frontier living then look at the whole history of the Reconquista (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista) as the Christian Lords fought their way down from the mountains of northern Spain into the central regions of the Iberian Peninsula.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014934But you're not right in that it's somehow the 'only' way that happened.  While the vast majority of people never left more than a few miles from their place of birth, there were a significant number of people who traveled all over the place, without being agents of the church.

Yes, you're right it's not the 'only' way it happened, but I was thinking that the other types of groups - usually sponsored by Lords, Merchants, etc - wouldn't necessarily be welcomed poking their noses in to all and sundry. I think that a group of armed "strangers" that were wandering around without some sort of official sanction would be treated as bandits or worse.

Quote from: spon;1015005Yes, you're right it's not the 'only' way it happened, but I was thinking that the other types of groups - usually sponsored by Lords, Merchants, etc - wouldn't necessarily be welcomed poking their noses in to all and sundry. I think that a group of armed "strangers" that were wandering around without some sort of official sanction would be treated as bandits or worse.

And you'd be right, according to what we know of historical figures.

Go read The Decameron, Canterbury Tales and Morte de Arthur and then come back and tell us all about how narrow and monochromatic medieval life was. If you don't have time for that, just read the game book that launched all these middle-ages threads (Lion and Dragon); if you read 10 pages of it you would find gobs of adventure hook ideas.

Quote from: spon;1015005Yes, you're right it's not the 'only' way it happened, but I was thinking that the other types of groups - usually sponsored by Lords, Merchants, etc - wouldn't necessarily be welcomed poking their noses in to all and sundry. I think that a group of armed "strangers" that were wandering around without some sort of official sanction would be treated as bandits or worse.

I don't think Hardrada had his men hide their weapons or armor while riding through Russia the first time, the first time he was doing it peacefully that is. It's been so long since I read the Poul Anderson biography but I'm pretty sure that there was quite a bit of traveling in small groups, conspicuously armed, and no one gave him any trouble.

Quote from: estar;1014994For more read about Forty Shilling FreeHolders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-shilling_freeholders).

No overlord at all? That's not what the article says.

Quote from: joriandrake;1014992You can do introductions like: "I'm Brother Joseph" is usually enough to place him as part of clergy, especially if wearing monk robes.

Fair point. What I had in mind was a conversation, which I presume would consist of more than one line where the other party to the conversation would expect you to clarify where you were from, what you did, and your place in society. But that isn't what I wrote, so correction taken.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1015009Go read The Decameron, Canterbury Tales and Morte de Arthur and then come back and tell us all about how narrow and monochromatic medieval life was. If you don't have time for that, just read the game book that launched all these middle-ages threads (Lion and Dragon); if you read 10 pages of it you would find gobs of adventure hook ideas.

As usual due to everyone bickering like old ladies no one has actually presented an actual adventure hook as an example.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1015009Go read The Decameron, Canterbury Tales and Morte de Arthur and then come back and tell us all about how narrow and monochromatic medieval life was. If you don't have time for that, just read the game book that launched all these middle-ages threads (Lion and Dragon); if you read 10 pages of it you would find gobs of adventure hook ideas.

Why are you throwing this strawman at me?  Seriously.  I was talking about ADVENTURERS!  Not village life.

Jeeze, it's like saying sitcoms or character dramas are narrow and monochromatic, and I know I'm not saying that.

Quote from: Voros;1015021As usual due to everyone bickering like old ladies no one has actually presented an actual adventure hook as an example.

Well, we have had lots of hooks, but only a few times has someone given us an example of how things are going to be different to and from those adventure hooks, or probably the most important part, in between.  Crawford's was one of the best.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015024Why are you throwing this strawman at me?  Seriously.  I was talking about ADVENTURERS!  Not village life.

Only village life? :rolleyes: Christopher it would be a pleasant change if once in a while you were silent rather than publicly displaying your ignorance.

Le Morte d'Arthur is King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table stories. Village life is mentioned rarely if at all in the entire book. Now here's the cast list from just one of the tales of the Decameron:

QuoteBeminedab the Sultan of Babylon, King of the Algarve, Pericon of Visalgo, a servant, ladies, Marato, Duke of Athens, Prince of Morea, Ciuriaci the servant, Constantine, Constantine's son, Constantine's nephew Manuel, Uzbek King of the Turks, Antiochus the servant of Uzbek, Basanus King of Cappadocia, Antigonus of Famagusta the businessman, King of Cyprus, Alatiel the Sultan's daughter, King of Algarve

1 Sultan, the daughter of a Sultan, 4 Kings, and 1 Duke in just that one tale.

It's true that the Canterbury Tales are more down to earth. But some players like to play more mundane characters. If you and your players don't then pick ideas from the dozens and dozens of other stories about Kings, Queens, Dukes, fair ladies, brave knights, villainous knights and so on.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015024Why are you throwing this strawman at me?  Seriously.  I was talking about ADVENTURERS!  Not village life.

Only village life? Christopher it would be a pleasant change if once in a while you were silent rather than publicly displaying your ignorance.

Le Morte d'Arthur is King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table stories. Maybe you've heard of them or watched a movie or something? Village life is mentioned rarely, if at all, in the entire book. What about the Decameron? Here's the cast list from just one of the tales:

QuoteBeminedab the Sultan of Babylon, King of the Algarve, Pericon of Visalgo, a servant, ladies, Marato, Duke of Athens, Prince of Morea, Ciuriaci the servant, Constantine, Constantine's son, Constantine's nephew Manuel, Uzbek King of the Turks, Antiochus the servant of Uzbek, Basanus King of Cappadocia, Antigonus of Famagusta the businessman, King of Cyprus, Alatiel the Sultan's daughter, King of Algarve

1 Sultan, the daughter of a Sultan, 4 Kings, and 1 Duke in just that one tale. Yeah totally a tale of ordinary village life. :rolleyes:

It's true that the Canterbury Tales are more down to earth. But some players like to play more mundane characters and the story ideas there are good for that. If you and your players only want to play demigods, gods, and big damn heroes saving the world every week then pick ideas from the dozens and dozens of other stories about Kings, Queens, Dukes, fair ladies, brave knights, villainous knights and so on.

Quote from: Bren;1015034Only village life? Christopher it would be a pleasant change if once in a while you were silent rather than publicly displaying your ignorance.

Not betting on it, personally.
But FFS, Cupcake, you can take example from fairy tales, too! Ever read the original ones? You should, here's something for you!

Quote from: The Four Skillful BrothersA poor old father sent his sons out to learn trades. Each one met a man and was persuaded to learn the trade of the man whom he had met. In this manner, the oldest son became a thief, the second an astronomer, the third a huntsman, the fourth a tailor. When they returned, their father put them to the test. He asked his second son how many eggs there were in a nest, high on the tree, and the second son used his telescope to tell him five. Next, the eldest son climbed the tree and stole the eggs without the birds even being aware, and the third son shot all five eggs with one shot. The fourth son sewed both the shattered eggs and the chicks inside them back together, so that when the eldest put the eggs back in the nest, again without the mother bird noticing, they hatched with the only sign being some red thread about their necks.

Not long after, the King's Daughter was stolen by a Dragon. The brothers set out to rescue her. The astronomer used his telescope to find her, and asked for a ship to reach where she was held captive. The huntsman at first did not dare shoot the dragon, for fear of killing the princess as well. The thief instead stole her away, and they all set out to return to the king. The dragon followed, and this time the huntsman killed him - but when the dragon fell into the ocean, the resulting wave swamped the boat and smashed it to pieces. Finally, the tailor saved them all by sewing the boat back together.

The king did not know which man to give his daughter to, because each one had played an essential part in the rescue. He instead gave them a quarter of the kingdom each, and they agreed that that was better than their quarreling.

The first paragraph would totally be an example of various Kung-fu in Eastern tales, BTW, no modifications needed:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1015067Not betting on it, personally.
But FFS, Cupcake, you can take example from fairy tales, too! Ever read the original ones? You should, here's something for you!

The first paragraph would totally be an example of various Kung-fu in Eastern tales, BTW, no modifications needed:D!

I think you just helped me add another fairy tale story to the darker story world/setting I have for my niece, although I'll wait with this one for at least 2 more years because I'm planning to have the King share the daughter between those 4 as reward instead.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015072I think you just helped me add another fairy tale story to the darker story world/setting I have for my niece, although I'll wait with this one for at least 2 more years because I'm planning to have the King share the daughter between those 4 as reward instead.

...don't forget the story how they off the king, share the kingdom, and three of them marry foreign princesses, then;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1015075...don't forget the story how they off the king, share the kingdom, and three of them marry foreign princesses, then;).

Hm, I think it is more dark if the king just gives his daughter to four guys to be shared instead of offering anything else.


...Damn, I didn't GM for a good while now but I start to feel the need to do it again for a larger group. Maybe after I play a bit PBP with others I will try my hand at it myself. I have to check if there is some proper fairy tale system/setting because Pathfinder is good for my niece and I can modify things as I want to, but it just doesn't have the perfect fit for a similar dark world if I want to use it for (mature) adults.

Quote from: Bren;1015019No overlord at all? That's not what the article says.

They are freeholders meaning they not beholden to anybody but the king/sovereign.

Quote from: Voros;1015021As usual due to everyone bickering like old ladies no one has actually presented an actual adventure hook as an example.

Well I wrote and published an adventure inspired by a 18th  century legend. Does that count? It has a half dozen hooks. The one I use most often in playtest is that the players are hanging out in the Baron's court hoping for a job. When the Baron gets news that the villagers are refusing to bring in the harvest, he picks the PCs out and orders them to deal with the wolves and get his harvest in and claps his huntsman in the stockade.

The Scourge of the Demon Wolf (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/106705/Scourge-of-the-Demon-Wolf)
The Beast of Gevaudan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_G%C3%A9vaudan)

A detailed review (http://tenfootpole.org/ironspike/?p=1307).


The one I am currently working on, the Deceits of the Russet Lord, involves the PCs being sent by the bishop to find out why the local monastery, which is the site of a popular shrine, is late on their tithe. One of the key elements of the adventure is dealing with the son of the village and the daughter of the bailiff who are smitten with each other. The bailiff is a knight who in charge of managing the manor attached to the monastery. The knight is not well liked by the villagers as he is a bully.

The monks have gotten used to the wealth the shrine brings in and gotten lack in their oversight of the baliff and paying the bishop on time and in full.

And behind the scenes there is the Russet Lord, a winter faerie, seeing a prime opportunity to recreate one of the most important stories that gives him his powers. Unfortunately that story was about the destruction of a village as a result of the actions of two star crossed lovers.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015076Hm, I think it is more dark if the king just gives his daughter to four guys to be shared instead of offering anything else.

However, it's pointless, and destroys one of the main laws of fairytales and medieval-authentic stories. Namely, that land is to be inherited to the characters that prove themselves  worthy, and marriage is a way to confirm that;).

Quote from: joriandrake;1015076Hm, I think it is more dark if the king just gives his daughter to four guys to be shared instead of offering anything else.

"Dark" is vastly overrated.

Quote from: AsenRG;1015082However, it's pointless, and destroys one of the main laws of fairytales and medieval-authentic stories. Namely, that land is to be inherited to the characters that prove themselves  worthy, and marriage is a way to confirm that;).

Not offspring/heirs? :P

Quote from: Bren;1015020Fair point. What I had in mind was a conversation, which I presume would consist of more than one line where the other party to the conversation would expect you to clarify where you were from, what you did, and your place in society.

And seriously, folks, no one's imagining that every wanderer who passes down the highroad through Redwave Manor was set upon by grim-faced interrogators with hot irons and knives.  Likely the conversation at the alehouse would go one of two ways:

Important Villager: So, strangers, whither are you bound?

(a) PC (affably): Greetings, goodman; my name is Michael of Iconium, and my companions here are Brother Liam and Aelric of Loxley.  We're for the cathedral in Warminster, where Brother Liam has a book for the dean's library.  Come, may I stand you and your friends to a stoup?

(b) PC (sullenly): Huh?  Warminster.  Why?  (rests his free hand on his sword hilt)

For all we know, Michael's lying through his teeth, but we also know which answer's going to provoke the alewife's son to run like the clappers to Sir Andrew's tower.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1015088"Dark" is vastly overrated.

I think the proper answer here is "Light" is overrated.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015102I think the proper answer here is "Light" is overrated.

Shades of grey (50 or otherwise) is overrated.

Quote from: Bren;1015034Only village life? Christopher it would be a pleasant change if once in a while you were silent rather than publicly displaying your ignorance.

Le Morte d'Arthur is King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table stories. Maybe you've heard of them or watched a movie or something? Village life is mentioned rarely, if at all, in the entire book. What about the Decameron? Here's the cast list from just one of the tales:
1 Sultan, the daughter of a Sultan, 4 Kings, and 1 Duke in just that one tale. Yeah totally a tale of ordinary village life. :rolleyes:

It's true that the Canterbury Tales are more down to earth. But some players like to play more mundane characters and the story ideas there are good for that. If you and your players only want to play demigods, gods, and big damn heroes saving the world every week then pick ideas from the dozens and dozens of other stories about Kings, Queens, Dukes, fair ladies, brave knights, villainous knights and so on.

You may want to know why I ignored Morte D'Arthur?  Because if you HAD read it, it's about being a LORD AND SERVING ONE!  At the same time.  Not classic adventurers.  You're not disproving my point that the only way to 'adventure' in a Medieval Authentic setting is to be a Lord (ecclesiastical or royal) or serving one.

I'm utterly confused as to why you think I'm stupid when you can't even prove me wrong.  For God's sake, man, pay attention!  If it's possible, then you should be able to do so. I can only assume that you can't.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015115You may want to know why I ignored Morte D'Arthur?  Because if you HAD read it, it's about being a LORD AND SERVING ONE!  At the same time.  Not classic adventurers.  You're not disproving my point that the only way to 'adventure' in a Medieval Authentic setting is to be a Lord (ecclesiastical or royal) or serving one.

I'm utterly confused as to why you think I'm stupid when you can't even prove me wrong.  For God's sake, man, pay attention!  If it's possible, then you should be able to do so. I can only assume that you can't.

I'm really not clear on what the issue or disagreement is here. For a concrete example, I'll take the Cuthren Village campaign I played in years ago - which was a HarnMaster campaign, set in the fantasy world of Harn which has a largely medieval background. The PCs were a brewer, a merchant, and two priests. The merchant was the son of a moneylender that the local lord was heavily indebted to.

Player Characters:   http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/harn/cuthren/pcs.html

Our adventures generally focused on our dealing with unusual issues coming up in the area of the village - which is on the borders between several political and religious powers. Aside from the lord, we were the top people in the village - and allied together to deal with events in our area.

My general Harn page: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/harn/

Session summaries: http://web.archive.org/web/20081015200742/http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jchokey/harn/cuthren/summaries.html

You could say that none of us were classic D&D adventurers - we didn't wander from town to town and go down into nearby dungeons. Although arguably two of us fit with being clerics. The Save-K'norran priest was an oddity in town, but my Agrikan priest served in the household of the lord who was Agrikan.  The Agrikan priest was usually the most "official" character when we went around - but Agrikanism wasn't very popular with most of the people we met, so that only went so far.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015115I'm utterly confused...

We know.

Quote...why you think I'm stupid

Because you are.

QuoteI can only assume that you can't.

Christopher no one can prove to you that you are wrong. You repeatedly demonstrated in one thread after another that you discount anything that contradicts your limited point of view.

In this thread alone, multiple people have given you examples of suitable adventures for characters who aren't lords or working directly for a lord. But you discount every single one because it doesn't fit your very narrow view of what an acceptable PC is. If you want to play a murder-hobo type of adventurer in a authentically medieval setting you can. But in any plausible setting without a magical PCs-are-special rule to protect your PC, he is likely to have a limited lifespan as the powers that be decide your murdering hobo is more trouble than he is worth and have him offed toot sweet.

This whole thread is driving me nuts.

Too many history teachers have been drawing nice simple pyramids of "feudal hierarchy" to illustrate the vastly complex subject of a thousand years of European society.  Medieval Europe was a chaotic mess of Germanic, Roman, and Christian elements in an ever evolving blender.  There were many different feudal and semi-feudal societies that were loosley held together by the Roman church, but the most universal elements were social fragmentation and political decentralization.  It was full of contradictions.  It was a society where the strong ruled the weak, but the lamb was idolized and the lion demonized. There was heroic scholarship in a sea of ignorance.  Travel and trade was both highly profitable and dangerous.  There were dozens of languages and folklores.  Monotheism was the order of the day but polytheism was ever present in the worship of saints. How all of that gets translated into a rigid, inflexible society bereft opportunity in the popular imagination is beyond me.  Clearly some people on this thread get it, but many, obstinately, do not.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015172How all of that gets translated into a rigid, inflexible society bereft opportunity

In this thread, it's not, it's getting translated more into "a type of setting with some default assumptions quite different from most D&D fantasy settings".

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015172This whole thread is driving me nuts.

Too many history teachers have been drawing nice simple pyramids of "feudal hierarchy" to illustrate the vastly complex subject of a thousand years of European society.  Medieval Europe was a chaotic mess of Germanic, Roman, and Christian elements in an ever evolving blender.  There were many different feudal and semi-feudal societies that were loosley held together by the Roman church, but the most universal elements were social fragmentation and political decentralization.  It was full of contradictions.  It was a society where the strong ruled the weak, but the lamb was idolized and the lion demonized. There was heroic scholarship in a sea of ignorance.  Travel and trade was both highly profitable and dangerous.  There were dozens of languages and folklores.  Monotheism was the order of the day but polytheism was ever present in the worship of saints. How all of that gets translated into a rigid, inflexible society bereft opportunity in the popular imagination is beyond me.  Clearly some people on this thread get it, but many, obstinately, do not.

You forgot the part where science, scientists, and engineers were either enslaved, paid outrageously like mercenaries (when some gain was thought to be had from the science or engineering), or hunted like animals for sport.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1015198You forgot the part where science, scientists, and engineers were either enslaved, paid outrageously like mercenaries (when some gain was thought to be had from the science or engineering), or hunted like animals for sport.

I have no idea whether you are being sarcastic, have your periods mixed up, or if you actually believe this myth.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015115You may want to know why I ignored Morte D'Arthur?  Because if you HAD read it, it's about being a LORD AND SERVING ONE!  At the same time.  Not classic adventurers.  

Most of the time the PCs in my fantasy D&D campaigns are serving a lord of some kind when they go down dungeons & fight dragons. You have a somewhat weirdly narrow idea of what adventuring is about if it requires no lord/patron.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015178In this thread, it's not, it's getting translated more into "a type of setting with some default assumptions quite different from most D&D fantasy settings".

Ok, that's fine, but many of the assumptions being thrown around here are completely wrong, and I am not sure how you build an "authentic" setting/game about medieval Europe based on myths and ahistorical assumptions.

First off, to answer your original questions, we have to narrow what we mean by medieval society.  The medieval period was nothing if not diverse. What assumptions can we make about the societies of a fragmented continental geography over the course of a thousand years? Are we talking 14th century France, or 8th century Anglo-Saxon England? Is this the Spain of Charles Martel, EL Cid, or of the the fall of Granada?  What do the city states of northern Italy during the investiture controversy have in common with Norman England, the Byzantine/Bulgarian frontier, or the Ireland of Brian Boru? Was the faith of the Teutonic crusaders the same as the faith of Cluny, the Cathars or St. Francis? Did the Venetians, the Kieven Rus, or the Celtic fringe of Britain not trade? Were the Black forest or the Ardennes in the heart of western Europe not a wilderness or at least a borderland? I could go on and on and on.

If we reduce the entire period, including all of the above, to a ridiculous set of universal "assumptions" about travel, social mobility, frontiers, and oppression, then there is nothing "authentic" about it at all.

Rather than arguing about the history of the middle ages how about presenting some examples of adventures and how they differ from standard D&D?

Quote from: Voros;1015220Rather than arguing about the history of the middle ages how about presenting some examples of adventures and how they differ from standard D&D?

I get that, and your point is well taken, but the place to start is by narrowing "middle ages" way down to something concrete and specific in place and time.  If you want an "authentic" medieval game, the only way to do that, and to get the depth that history can provide, is to pin-point a specific conflict or place and period.

For example, Loz's Mythic Britain is 95% history and 5% fantasy and it is an excellent example of how to run a historical game because it focused on a specific geographical area (Britain) in a specific period (early 6th century) and on a specific conflict/problem (the collapse of sub-Roman Britain).  This allows for concrete definitions of cultures, religions, society, conflict, and what PCs actually do.

An even better example of how to run an "authentic" historical game is a game called 43 AD. It's not medieval, but it shows the unparalleled depth you can get out of a historical game if you are willing to be specific. In 43 AD you play Roman soldiers in an unknown primeval barbarian land.  It is a mixture of military adventure and horror. It contains about 10 pages of rules and 150 pages of concrete examples of "what do you actually do?"

No historian can answer the OP's question, or your reiteration of it, because it is too broad and contains so many generalizations that no answer can be accurate or "authentic."

If you want an answer beyond historical argument, you have to narrow your topic to something manageable and meaningful.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015236you have to narrow your topic to something manageable and meaningful.

You mean like Gamedaddy did in post #24 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38203-The-Medieval-Authentic-PC-Party-What-do-they-do&p=1013872&viewfull=1#post1013872) and SineNomine did in post #31 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38203-The-Medieval-Authentic-PC-Party-What-do-they-do&p=1013963&viewfull=1#post1013963)?

We're still waitin' on yours, bro. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015238You mean like Gamedaddy did in post #24 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38203-The-Medieval-Authentic-PC-Party-What-do-they-do&p=1013872&viewfull=1#post1013872) and SineNomine did in post #31 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38203-The-Medieval-Authentic-PC-Party-What-do-they-do&p=1013963&viewfull=1#post1013963)?

We're still waitin' on yours, bro. :D

Ah, shit. You cornered me.  And yes, those are good examples. More later.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015214First off, to answer your original questions, we have to narrow what we mean by medieval society.  The medieval period was nothing if not diverse.

Why not all of them? Just make your setting expansive enough to encompass enough so that it plausible for the multiple types of medieval society can co-exist. It what I did with the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: S'mon;1015206Most of the time the PCs in my fantasy D&D campaigns are serving a lord of some kind when they go down dungeons & fight dragons. You have a somewhat weirdly narrow idea of what adventuring is about if it requires no lord/patron.

Yea. In my current games, the party is currently working for 1) a guild and 2) a church. Previously group 1) worked for a lord and group 2) was part of a foreign-backed rebellion.  Group 2) also did some freelancing on the side, but made many enemies and had to skaddle.

I think the problem is the some D&D-ish games are largely devoid of meaningful social/political context and relations. So if a game or setting presents those as a feature, some people appear to think it's a bug.

History can be fun guys. It doesn't need to be a painful dick measuring contest.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015178In this thread, it's not, it's getting translated more into "a type of setting with some default assumptions quite different from most D&D fantasy settings".

I can't speak for anybody else, but I've always looked on it that way, yeah.  I have no problem with playing straight D&D in a medieval fantasy world; like I said above, it just means my maps, NPCs, and world situations are better than any game world.

Quote from: Voros;1015220Rather than arguing about the history of the middle ages how about presenting some examples of adventures and how they differ from standard D&D?

Far fewer women in power, none in certain jobs, and unless serving God (nun) or being a ruler (inherited lands) or wife of one they won't have much power and respect. In some cases even if they have power and/or respect people behind their back will act/think differently.

Of course this varies somewhat depending on culture and region, but if we consider medieval times to start from Charlemagne then more or less this is true for all of Christian Europe. Nordic realms have more leeway and still a bit less strict after the end of viking adventuring and converting to Christianity.

I assume this topic might be risky or taboo to some people but I'm pretty sure one of the main differences between D&D's (accept all races, cultures, genders) & authentic medieval European flavor would be the earlier mentioned society ladder, and the role of women in it.


Yes, there were exceptions, but those were pretty rare or unheard of unless the woman was of noble blood or a nun. If you're a big and strong man you won't be bothered or insulted more than any mercenary if that's your profession. If you're a female mercenary (be good looking or ugly, small or tall) you won't only have to constantly get targeted first in combat, you'll have to take more insults, sexual approaches (appropriate or not), you might have to constantly prove your worth to your fellow mercenaries of your company (and don't even consider working/moving for a longer time alone) or even physically beat them (and don't expect them to be nicer to you thereafter), your merc captain or client might decide/attempt to not pay you, or if you're part of a merc company the client might decide not to pay the whole company because you're part of it (and the other mercs will blame you for it), you won't be allowed to take part in tournaments, obviously rewards like marrying a princess are forfeited (if you say you're lesbian the Church or a peasant mob might hunt you), ect

and this is just medieval Christian Europe, the Islamic world (with rare few exceptions due to more enlightened rulers) are even more strict

If you want to have an authentic medieval feel it's not enough to only place the same tools, armors, and weapons into the setting, or maybe make some mythical creatures real, even to mimic the social structure to a degree (having knights, kings, princes, monotheic clergy) isn't 'authentic' enough without this difference.

At the same time I doubt many RPG players in our modern world would be willing to play like this, especially if there are girl players in the group, perhaps except in Saudi Arabia, so I assume most people will just overlook the gender roles/difference.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015296At the same time I doubt many RPG players in our modern world would be willing to play like this, especially if there are girl players in the group, perhaps except in Saudi Arabia, so I assume most people will just overlook the gender roles/difference.

While I've never done it, if I did run Pendragon or suchlike it would probably be on the understanding that female players were willing to play a male PC.

Quote from: S'mon;1015304While I've never done it, if I did run Pendragon or suchlike it would probably be on the understanding that female players were willing to play a male PC.

That is of course a legit way to handle the ingame social ladder if they do it, although it's usually boys who are willing to make female characters. I did know one girl who used to make Conans and terminators.

PS: S'mon I go to the chatroom for tomorrow's game discussion

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015172How all of that gets translated into a rigid, inflexible society bereft opportunity in the popular imagination is beyond me.  Clearly some people on this thread get it, but many, obstinately, do not.

Simple.  Like any other thread that goes more than a few posts, many people (a) jump to the extremes, (b) assume that generalizations are uniformly pervasive, and (c) let confirmation bias do the talking, especially where their mashup knowledge based on their favorite fantasy books and movies is concerned.  My longstanding observation is that gamers usually suck as historians and think they know a great deal more than they do, and part of the reason I'm on this forum is that the percentage of posters who genuinely know what they're talking about is a good bit higher than the Internet norm.

A newly married peasant couple move into the cottage they've rented in a county adjacent to their home village, to start their own farm. When they go gathering mushrooms in the adjacent woods they stumble across a glade with a scorch mark in the shape of a 5 pointed star, in the center a collection of disaggregated tiny human bones.

That's it. We're ready for an adventure. No lords or bishops (yet...); it is not important which character is a man and which is a woman (if you are totally disinterested in torturing yourself in the interests of supposed social realism they could be two of each). Just some player characters going about their lives who find something that is a call to arms. Anything can happen after that - that's why its a roleplaying game.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1015326A newly married peasant couple move into the cottage they've rented in a county adjacent to their home village, to start their own farm. When they go gathering mushrooms in the adjacent woods they stumble across a glade with a scorch mark in the shape of a 5 pointed star, in the center a collection of disaggregated tiny human bones.

That's it. We're ready for an adventure. No lords or bishops (yet...); it is not important which character is a man and which is a woman (if you are totally disinterested in torturing yourself in the interests of supposed social realism they could be two of each). Just some player characters going about their lives who find something that is a call to arms. Anything can happen after that - that's why its a roleplaying game.

I'm not sure an "authentic medieval" peasant couple is even allowed to rent/move/start 'their' 'own' farm as you think. Although it depends on date and their origin/location, and whether peasants were also serfs (which is highly likely).

QuoteSerfdom was a system of relations between the owners of land and the peasant tenants who resided on it. These relations involved a variety of social, socio-psychological, cultural, economic, legal, and political aspects that together made serfdom a complex societal institution. A serf is a worker who has to stay in one area. Serfs were the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs were different from slaves. Serfs could have property. In most serfdoms, serfs were legally part of the land, and if the land was sold, they were sold with it.

Whatever the means of their enserfment, over time serfs became liable to a range of payments and were expected to perform labor services for their lords. The most important services were agricultural labor on the demesne or that part of the estate the lord retained as his own, haulage and cartage, military aid or its equivalent, upkeep of the lord's castle, and food and lodging for the lord's men when they visited the area. Serfs remained at the master's mercy, meaning that he could dictate to them the terms and nature of their obligations at will.

Serfdom is the forced labour of serfs, on the fields of the land owners. Serfs got protection and the right to work on the leased fields. Serfs worked in fields, and other agricultural-related works, like forestry, transportation (both land and river-based), work in craft and even in manufacturing. Serfdom came from agricultural slavery of the Roman Empire and spread through Europe around the 10th century. Most people lived in serfdoms during the Middle Ages of Europe. In England, serfdom lasted up to the 1600s, in France until 1789. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, just when serfdom had begun to decline in many parts of western Europe, a similar institution based on servility emerged in eastern Europe. In most other European countries serfdom lasted until the early 19th century.

Eastern/Central Europe specific:

QuoteHistorians of east European serfdom traditionally emphasize its political or economic aspects; they concentrate on the consolidation and centralization of state power or focus on the development of master-serf economic and labor relations. Some of these studies are monochromatic in their portrayal of east European peasants as slavelike, dark, passive, and isolated. Although this essay does not ignore these traditional approaches to serfdom in eastern Europe, namely in Austro-Hungary, East Elbian Germany, Poland, Prussia, the Baltic States, and Russia, its analysis turns on a discussion of relatively dynamic social and economic factors and, where appropriate, on regional variations.

Perhaps the most important social feature of east European serfdom, like any other serfdom, is that it occurred in a society numerically dominated by the peasantry. At the time serfdom was established, the peasantry accounted for about 80 to 90 percent of the population of the region. Approximately half of the peasants lived on individual landlords' lands and thus were serfs, whereas the balance who lived on church and state lands did not fit into the category of serfdom. Landlords constituted only about 1 percent of the population and owned lands populated with large numbers of peasants who performed agricultural or other labor. An average landlord's estate held several hundred peasants, with individual estates running from a handful to tens of thousands of peasants (several Polish, Hungarian, and Russian magnates owned hundreds of thousands). East European landlords thus lived in an overwhelmingly peasant society.

The complexities and ambiguities of east European serfdom require emphasis. Despite the essential oppressiveness of serfdom, the legislation that enforced it also enabled peasants to sustain their basic economic and social needs. The laws that tied millions of east European peasants to the land at the same time provided the peasantry with the ability for temporary employment outside the ascribed place of residence, as well as for various trading, commercial, and even entrepreneurial pursuits within and away from the village. On the one hand, serfs were sometimes bought and sold at the will of their landlords; on the other, they were protected by laws against personal insult and unreasonable corporal punishment. In Russia, despite bans on serf complaints against their lords, peasants often sued the lords in state courts and sometimes succeeded in bringing to trial those who violated their rights. Serfs also frequently applied to legal institutions seeking emancipation. Having the goal of preserving hierarchy, serfdom simultaneously and somewhat paradoxically opened the door to a certain social mobility for peasants. These legal loopholes constituted a basis for maintaining a certain balance between the interests of the state and the nobility on one side and these of the peasantry on the other.

In fact, neither the state nor the landlord had an interest in totally attaching the peasants to the land. In order to sustain the economic needs of the state and of the landlord, peasants had to have a certain freedom to move (this was particularly crucial in those areas where agriculture was not a primary occupation or where nearby urban centers offered greater earning possibilities). None of the laws in eastern Europe that restricted peasant freedom provided for complete bondage. For example, the notorious Russian 1649 law code indeed heavily restricted the peasant's ability to move. Not commonly realized is that, at the same time, the law granted the peasant the right to migrate temporarily, with proper authorization, in order to seek employment outside the estate.

Used sources: Mainly Wikipedia and this here (due to English version access) http://www.encyclopedia.com/international/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/serfdom-eastern-europe

Quote from: joriandrake;1015345I'm not sure an "authentic medieval" peasant couple is even allowed to rent/move/start 'their' 'own' farm as you think. Although it depends on date and their origin/location, and whether peasants were also serfs (which is highly likely).

I'm trying to get off of my historical high horse, but Larsdangly's proposal is plenty "authentic" and the perception that commoners in western Europe were all bonded serfs is a myth.

Serfdom was rare in western Europe and really only occurred in the late 12th through early 14th centuries with the population boom of the high middle ages and the abundance of labor that followed.  It dies out entirely after the plague.

Moreover, there were many, rather confused, legal and economic stratifications of commoners: there were villians, cotters, serfs, slaves, churls, freemen, peasants, yeomen, and many others.  Many owned land, many more rented and paid their rents with labor and/or kind.  Sometimes commoners status changed depending on the day of the week.  I've found lots of records of persons who were slaves for two days a week and free the rest. It's bloody complicated.  I could recommend sources, but I'm still trying to get off of my horse. Anyway, rent was common, and people were continuously clearing new land so larsdangly's scenario is pretty legit.

First: my proposal is perfectly fine, historically speaking. The peasantry consisted of people who were effectively slaves, people who were not slaves but contractually bound to the land, people who rented land but could move around if they had the resources to do so, and people who owned land. In various proportions at different places and times. Going to wikipedia and reading about serfs doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Second: for god's sake, we are talking about a game that is trying to just dial up the historicity for the sake of enjoying the new flavors and colors that come into your campaign when you try to surround your characters with a little reality instead of nothing but bullshit. If you like bullshit that is fine; I do too. But reality is also interesting sometimes, so long as you take it in small doses. It is fine to fold in a bit of reality and have fun.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015091Not offspring/heirs? :P

That's the reason people marry in real life, and probably the reason they married IRL in history. The reasoning of the fairytales kinda inverts that:).
Furthermore, "sharing" the princess would violate the principle of ensuring offsprings, too. Because offsprings didn't matter, by themselves, what mattered was that they had to be of guaranteed lineage.
Before blood tests, there was no way your scenario would be considered acceptable. Hence, the king would get offed, especially if those four brothers were acting anything like PCs;).

Quote from: joriandrake;1015102I think the proper answer here is "Light" is overrated.

I think Gronan was too polite, despite his farting:D!

I'm not, so here's the unsugared version of this statement. "Your version of "dark" sucks, because it's dark that actually damages both fairytale and medieval authentic logic".

Quote from: Bren;1015135Christopher no one can prove to you that you are wrong. You repeatedly demonstrated in one thread after another that you discount anything that contradicts your limited point of view.

In this thread alone, multiple people have given you examples of suitable adventures for characters who aren't lords or working directly for a lord. But you discount every single one because it doesn't fit your very narrow view of what an acceptable PC is. If you want to play a murder-hobo type of adventurer in a authentically medieval setting you can. But in any plausible setting without a magical PCs-are-special rule to protect your PC, he is likely to have a limited lifespan as the powers that be decide your murdering hobo is more trouble than he is worth and have him offed toot sweet.

Well, technically, you can play mercenaries living in squalor in a port city and doing odd jobs. Just be prepared to meet press gangs, periodical sweeps of the "undersirables" (including torching their homes and establishments, which are often built outside the walls), and the likes.
Of course, smart rulers do the same in my fantasy games, too.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015172This whole thread is driving me nuts.

Too many history teachers have been drawing nice simple pyramids of "feudal hierarchy" to illustrate the vastly complex subject of a thousand years of European society.  Medieval Europe was a chaotic mess of Germanic, Roman, and Christian elements in an ever evolving blender.  There were many different feudal and semi-feudal societies that were loosley held together by the Roman church, but the most universal elements were social fragmentation and political decentralization.  It was full of contradictions.  It was a society where the strong ruled the weak, but the lamb was idolized and the lion demonized. There was heroic scholarship in a sea of ignorance.  Travel and trade was both highly profitable and dangerous.  There were dozens of languages and folklores.  Monotheism was the order of the day but polytheism was ever present in the worship of saints.

Totally true!

QuoteHow all of that gets translated into a rigid, inflexible society bereft opportunity in the popular imagination is beyond me.  Clearly some people on this thread get it, but many, obstinately, do not.

Nobody (or almost nobody, I'm not counting Cupcake) claims that.
It's a rigid society alright. Most societies were (just like many subcultures today).
It's less flexible than today's society, which to some people mean it's "inflexible". That's a problem with perceptions.
It's not bereft of opportunity in any way.

Quote from: S'mon;1015206Most of the time the PCs in my fantasy D&D campaigns are serving a lord of some kind when they go down dungeons & fight dragons. You have a somewhat weirdly narrow idea of what adventuring is about if it requires no lord/patron.

+1

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015214Ok, that's fine, but many of the assumptions being thrown around here are completely wrong, and I am not sure how you build an "authentic" setting/game about medieval Europe based on myths and ahistorical assumptions.

First off, to answer your original questions, we have to narrow what we mean by medieval society.  The medieval period was nothing if not diverse. What assumptions can we make about the societies of a fragmented continental geography over the course of a thousand years?

We can make any assumptions!
They just wouldn't apply universally;).

QuoteIf we reduce the entire period, including all of the above, to a ridiculous set of universal "assumptions" about travel, social mobility, frontiers, and oppression, then there is nothing "authentic" about it at all.

Yep, but go explain that to Cupcake. (Or do as I have, and IL him - you can always view a specific post if it's generating useful discussion).

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015236An even better example of how to run an "authentic" historical game is a game called 43 AD. It's not medieval, but it shows the unparalleled depth you can get out of a historical game if you are willing to be specific. In 43 AD you play Roman soldiers in an unknown primeval barbarian land.  It is a mixture of military adventure and horror. It contains about 10 pages of rules and 150 pages of concrete examples of "what do you actually do?"

That's worth repeating:)!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1015265History can be fun guys. It doesn't need to be a painful dick measuring contest.

You mean, it doesn't need to be like everything else on this site:D?

Quote from: joriandrake;1015296Far fewer women in power, none in certain jobs, and unless serving God (nun) or being a ruler (inherited lands) or wife of one they won't have much power and respect. In some cases even if they have power and/or respect people behind their back will act/think differently.

So, just like they treated male rulers;).

QuoteOf course this varies somewhat depending on culture and region, but if we consider medieval times to start from Charlemagne then more or less this is true for all of Christian Europe. Nordic realms have more leeway and still a bit less strict after the end of viking adventuring and converting to Christianity.

And it's also not quite true on the Balkan peninsula, where you also get "more leeway".

QuoteI assume this topic might be risky or taboo to some people but I'm pretty sure one of the main differences between D&D's (accept all races, cultures, genders) & authentic medieval European flavor would be the earlier mentioned society ladder, and the role of women in it.

Not any different than the role of the lower classes.

QuoteYes, there were exceptions, but those were pretty rare or unheard of unless the woman was of noble blood or a nun. If you're a big and strong man you won't be bothered or insulted more than any mercenary if that's your profession. If you're a female mercenary (be good looking or ugly, small or tall) you won't only have to constantly get targeted first in combat, you'll have to take more insults, sexual approaches (appropriate or not), you might have to constantly prove your worth to your fellow mercenaries of your company (and don't even consider working/moving for a longer time alone) or even physically beat them (and don't expect them to be nicer to you thereafter), your merc captain or client might decide/attempt to not pay you, or if you're part of a merc company the client might decide not to pay the whole company because you're part of it (and the other mercs will blame you for it), you won't be allowed to take part in tournaments, obviously rewards like marrying a princess are forfeited (if you say you're lesbian the Church or a peasant mob might hunt you), ect

The part about lesbians is simply untrue, BTW. They were often seen as a "non-event", for religious reasons.
It's gay men that had it tougher.

QuoteAt the same time I doubt many RPG players in our modern world would be willing to play like this, especially if there are girl players in the group, perhaps except in Saudi Arabia, so I assume most people will just overlook the gender roles/difference.

My players don't overlook them. In fact, they expect them.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1015326A newly married peasant couple move into the cottage they've rented in a county adjacent to their home village, to start their own farm. When they go gathering mushrooms in the adjacent woods they stumble across a glade with a scorch mark in the shape of a 5 pointed star, in the center a collection of disaggregated tiny human bones.

That's it. We're ready for an adventure. No lords or bishops (yet...); it is not important which character is a man and which is a woman (if you are totally disinterested in torturing yourself in the interests of supposed social realism they could be two of each). Just some player characters going about their lives who find something that is a call to arms. Anything can happen after that - that's why its a roleplaying game.

Or, if you're interested, they might be two unmarried brothers, or two sisters. Nobody would bat an eye on members of a family starting a farm together - in fact, if they're successful, they'd get offers to rectify that "unmarried" flaw;).

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015351I'm trying to get off of my historical high horse, but Larsdangly's proposal is plenty "authentic" and the perception that commoners in western Europe were all bonded serfs is a myth.

Serfdom was rare in western Europe and really only occurred in the late 12th through early 14th centuries with the population boom of the high middle ages and the abundance of labor that followed.  It dies out entirely after the plague.

Moreover, there were many, rather confused, legal and economic stratifications of commoners: there were villians, cotters, serfs, slaves, churls, freemen, peasants, yeomen, and many others.  Many owned land, many more rented and paid their rents with labor and/or kind.  Sometimes commoners status changed depending on the day of the week.  I've found lots of records of persons who were slaves for two days a week and free the rest. It's bloody complicated.  I could recommend sources, but I'm still trying to get off of my horse. Anyway, rent was common, and people were continuously clearing new land so larsdangly's scenario is pretty legit.

Care to send me sources in private, then:D?

Quote from: joriandrake;1015296Far fewer women in power, none in certain jobs, and unless serving God (nun) or being a ruler (inherited lands) or wife of one they won't have much power and respect. In some cases even if they have power and/or respect people behind their back will act/think differently.

Of course this varies somewhat depending on culture and region, but if we consider medieval times to start from Charlemagne then more or less this is true for all of Christian Europe. Nordic realms have more leeway and still a bit less strict after the end of viking adventuring and converting to Christianity.

I assume this topic might be risky or taboo to some people but I'm pretty sure one of the main differences between D&D's (accept all races, cultures, genders) & authentic medieval European flavor would be the earlier mentioned society ladder, and the role of women in it.


Yes, there were exceptions, but those were pretty rare or unheard of unless the woman was of noble blood or a nun. If you're a big and strong man you won't be bothered or insulted more than any mercenary if that's your profession. If you're a female mercenary (be good looking or ugly, small or tall) you won't only have to constantly get targeted first in combat, you'll have to take more insults, sexual approaches (appropriate or not), you might have to constantly prove your worth to your fellow mercenaries of your company (and don't even consider working/moving for a longer time alone) or even physically beat them (and don't expect them to be nicer to you thereafter), your merc captain or client might decide/attempt to not pay you, or if you're part of a merc company the client might decide not to pay the whole company because you're part of it (and the other mercs will blame you for it), you won't be allowed to take part in tournaments, obviously rewards like marrying a princess are forfeited (if you say you're lesbian the Church or a peasant mob might hunt you), ect

and this is just medieval Christian Europe, the Islamic world (with rare few exceptions due to more enlightened rulers) are even more strict

If you want to have an authentic medieval feel it's not enough to only place the same tools, armors, and weapons into the setting, or maybe make some mythical creatures real, even to mimic the social structure to a degree (having knights, kings, princes, monotheic clergy) isn't 'authentic' enough without this difference.

At the same time I doubt many RPG players in our modern world would be willing to play like this, especially if there are girl players in the group, perhaps except in Saudi Arabia, so I assume most people will just overlook the gender roles/difference.

No offense but I don't see an adventure idea anywhere in this response.

Not having women as adventurers is hardly mindblowing, Pendragon suggested it long ago. Although as a D&D game would include witches or sorcerers I think that would provide a role in groups for women PCs.

Quote from: S'mon;1015304While I've never done it, if I did run Pendragon or suchlike it would probably be on the understanding that female players were willing to play a male PC.

I've done it. It worked fine.

A young man living in his family home near the London riverbank has trained for years to take over his father's trade as a chandler, but his real first love is the folk wrestling that is practiced on sunday afternoons after church - he's strong and has a gift for fighting and hasn't lost a bout in two years. He's about to see how far his gifts go: His father's long-simmering civil law suit with a rival family in the neighborhood has turned hot-blooded and the paterfamilia have settled on a judicial duel to settle the dispute. Father's rival has claimed infirmity and put forward his strong young nephew as a champion, and our character knows he has to step up and do the same. But now he wonders: when he steps into the judicial ring with nothing but the cudgel allowed to a freeman, will his Sunday heroics mean anything at all in a brutal armed fight?

[another adventure seed for a 0 or 1st level commoner, all plausible for a 14th-15th century european setting]

Quote from: Voros;1015410No offense but I don't see an adventure idea anywhere in this response.

That second answer I wrote was still along the lines of the question of yours.

Quote from: Voros;1015220Rather than arguing about the history of the middle ages how about presenting some examples of adventures and how they differ from standard D&D?

So I foused on what the difference was and what wouldn't be more plausible, instead of on what would be. It wasn't about giving adventure ideas, rather which ideas wouldn't work well.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1015448A young man living in his family home near the London riverbank has trained for years to take over his father's trade as a chandler, but his real first love is the folk wrestling that is practiced on sunday afternoons after church - he's strong and has a gift for fighting and hasn't lost a bout in two years. He's about to see how far his gifts go: His father's long-simmering civil law suit with a rival family in the neighborhood has turned hot-blooded and the paterfamilia have settled on a judicial duel to settle the dispute. Father's rival has claimed infirmity and put forward his strong young nephew as a champion, and our character knows he has to step up and do the same. But now he wonders: when he steps into the judicial ring with nothing but the cudgel allowed to a freeman, will his Sunday heroics mean anything at all in a brutal armed fight?

[another adventure seed for a 0 or 1st level commoner, all plausible for a 14th-15th century european setting]

So where's the 'party' (as in a group of players) in this?  What can they do?  It sounds so very small, compared to just going out and exploring the world as you can in the frontier style of D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015459So where's the 'party' (as in a group of players) in this?  What can they do?  It sounds so very small, compared to just going out and exploring the world as you can in the frontier style of D&D.

Good god, you really will complain about absolutely anything. This is an 'adventure' for one character. In a quarter of a second I'll think of a similarly plausible, no-nobles or church leaders allowed, adventure for a party of 10 commoners, and I will post it some time later.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015459So where's the 'party' (as in a group of players) in this?  What can they do?  It sounds so very small, compared to just going out and exploring the world as you can in the frontier style of D&D.

If you want that, just play D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015459So where's the 'party' (as in a group of players) in this?  What can they do?  It sounds so very small, compared to just going out and exploring the world as you can in the frontier style of D&D.

The young men and boys, and possibly one or  two of the bigger young girls. of Akon by the Deep Pool have been challenged to a game of ball by a similar group down in Bad Ankle.* The local lord has no objection and the game is on. The rules are that each side has a ball (a pig's skin wrapped around cloth) in an agreed location and each side tries to get hold of the other team's ball and carry it back to their home village. The successful team gets to pick a cow and a pig from the other village's holdings. It is said that it used to be they got a marriageable girl also. Nothing can be carried except the ball, so weapons aren't involved, except  when people cheat. You can kick the ball along the ground if you want to be a  silly-bugger and have people point and laugh.  

*There is a settlement, village or town named Bad Ankle in all of my settings.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015459So where's the 'party' (as in a group of players) in this?  What can they do?  It sounds so very small, compared to just going out and exploring the world as you can in the frontier style of D&D.

Christ on a crutch.  Aside from mAcular Chaotic's sensible suggestion, seems to me that there are just a couple too many who are parsing everyone's posts through the lenses of their own preoccupations.  Between things like this, Voros' "But where are the adventure ideas???" and the people who just will not accept that anything isn't a 100%-0% absolute, my head's spinning.

I like to think you're not an idiot, Christopher, so what prevented you from reading one of the following in to Lars' post?

(a) The scenario's for a small number of people, because -- mirabile dictu -- not every RPG group's seven players strong, which follows with:

(b) What could a couple other players do?  Well, the chandler's two buddies could deal with other plot elements.  Handling the betting on the bout?  Keeping our young hero safe from the gang of bruisers intent on maiming him the night before so the good guys have to default on the duel and thereby lose the lawsuit?  Running interference during the bout so that said rowdies won't pull a fast one?  Intercepting the authorities intent on arresting the illegal brawlers?  Thinking of those things took me little more than the time to type them out, and I bet given a half-hour's time other posters could come up with a dozen more.

(c)  Yes, indeed, medieval-authentic plotlines may well be a lot closer to Harn than to kill-the-dragon/save-the-princess/loot-the-tomb/stop-the-apocalypse four-color dungeon fantasy.  Some people, strangely enough, like that scale of RPGing.  If it's incomprehensible to you that different gaming groups might have differing motivations, goals and paradigms than you, just stick with four-color D&D and have fun.

It should not take a brain surgeon to figure these things out.

By the by, I am being utterly serious here, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND.  I truly honestly do.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1015461Good god, you really will complain about absolutely anything. This is an 'adventure' for one character. In a quarter of a second I'll think of a similarly plausible, no-nobles or church leaders allowed, adventure for a party of 10 commoners, and I will post it some time later.

But that's the thing.  The adventure detailed is very...  In 3.x they had a series of 'NPC' classes, things like the Noble, the Expert, the Commoner, who were several steps below the Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief of OD&D days.  The adventure you posted is perfect for that level of play, but not much else.  In fact, there's not much more you can do there.

Now, as I don't have L&D, am I correct in thinking that there is no Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogues?  Or rather, they're smaller focused classes?  (I'm assuming because it's a D&D derivative, please correct me if I'm wrong.)  Are there classes at all?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015482But that's the thing.  The adventure detailed is very...  In 3.x they had a series of 'NPC' classes, things like the Noble, the Expert, the Commoner, who were several steps below the Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief of OD&D days.  The adventure you posted is perfect for that level of play, but not much else.  In fact, there's not much more you can do there.

May Issek of the Jug have mercy. :rolleyes:

Christopher you seem to have a very narrow view of what is acceptable to you as a player character. Every one of the examples of a possible adventure that numerous people have provided have sounded like it could easily be fun and serve as the starting point for an interesting campaign that would last months if not longer of real time. At least interesting for me and for many (though not all) of the people I've gamed with over the decades.

It would save everyone a lot of time and eliminate a lot of frustration if you'd first tell us what kind of characters (D&D or otherwise) you would find acceptable to play. Then people can come up with an adventure idea for those kinds of characters.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015467If you want that, just play D&D.

Let me third that suggestion, since Ravenswing also reached the same conclusion.
That, or we count on Issek of the Jug;)!

Quote from: joriandrake;1015451That second answer I wrote was still along the lines of the question of yours...


So I foused on what the difference was and what wouldn't be more plausible, instead of on what would be. It wasn't about giving adventure ideas, rather which ideas wouldn't work well.

I see thanks.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1015448...

[another adventure seed for a 0 or 1st level commoner, all plausible for a 14th-15th century european setting]

Thanks. I wonder how many Pendragon adventures could be cribbed for this setting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015482By the by, I am being utterly serious here, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND.  I truly honestly do.

But that's the thing.  The adventure detailed is very...  In 3.x they had a series of 'NPC' classes, things like the Noble, the Expert, the Commoner, who were several steps below the Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief of OD&D days.  The adventure you posted is perfect for that level of play, but not much else.  In fact, there's not much more you can do there.

Now, as I don't have L&D, am I correct in thinking that there is no Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogues?  Or rather, they're smaller focused classes?  (I'm assuming because it's a D&D derivative, please correct me if I'm wrong.)  Are there classes at all?

At this point, *I* want to understand.  You're a regular poster to this forum, indeed have several thousand posts over hundreds of threads.  This isn't a d20-only forum; heck, there are several regulars alone devoted to GURPS.  How, in all this time, have you not been exposed to concepts outside your usual playing paradigm?

Lars' scenario doesn't by-definition preclude Conanesque grand heroics.‡  It just starts things out at a lower level.  The chandler's nephew (and his buddies) likely get experience all the same, and will sooner or later get to what you'd think of as 1st level.  It doesn't preclude the protagonists being viable characters under many a game system: so, in GURPS terms, the guy might have Wrestling-15, Tournament Law-13 and Chandler-13 among any other thing.  What's so difficult here to get?


‡ - One of the numerous ironies here is that one of the first Conan adventures, chronologically ("The Thing In the Crypt"), involves nothing more heroic than shoving a mummy into a fire and has as the great payoff Finding A Broadsword.

Re divided princess - I thought Jorian meant literally dividing the princess up into four pieces, Judgement of Solomon style, which would ensure that none of the brothers gets to inherit the promised kingdom. I can imagine an evil/mad fairytale monarch at least plotting to do that.

Quote from: Bren;1015491It would save everyone a lot of time and eliminate a lot of frustration if you'd first tell us what kind of characters (D&D or otherwise) you would find acceptable to play. Then people can come up with an adventure idea for those kinds of characters.

I'm a Sword and Sorcery fan.  HOWEVER, in this more low key tone, I'd have to say, the game Beyond the Wall would work better than this.  Instead of small little events that really mean nothing in the scheme of the local area. Not to mention that magic would completely destroy the setting to pieces.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015553I'm a Sword and Sorcery fan.  HOWEVER, in this more low key tone, I'd have to say, the game Beyond the Wall would work better than this.  Instead of small little events that really mean nothing in the scheme of the local area. Not to mention that magic would completely destroy the setting to pieces.

Mm, but a lot of gaming's like this, especially if one goes module-hopping: disconnected adventure-of-the-week rather than plot arcs.  I prefer plot arcs myself, but to each his or her own.

As far as magic destroying the setting goes, let's stick with Lars' example.  Would full-fledged wizardry break the plot?  Possibly, depending on what it was: it's a scenario that one would hope an fire-based combat mage would have the mother wit to keep his spells in his pockets.

But why assume that a paradigm of low-level character power wouldn't prevail when it came to magic?  The nephew's buddy is less by way of a capital-W "wizard" than the apprentice of the local hedge witch, and knows a half-dozen cantrips; how her powers can materially affect the scenario is that one of her charms can tell if someone in the area told a lie in the last minute, another can tell if any active magic's in play, and a third can restore some fatigue, though she can brew a fortifying draught given enough time and the right ingredients that'll do a better job of it.  (Psst: don't get caught, because a standard stipulation in these duels is that no party will use Unholy Sorceries.)  Low key, not a scenario-buster.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015172This whole thread is driving me nuts.

You are in the right place, then.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015172This whole thread is driving me nuts.

Why did the pirate have a ship's wheel on the front of his pants?

"YARR, it be drivin' me nuts!"

Alright, so here is a fairly evolved and somewhat "high level" campaign idea.  I have several more that I will try to post if I have time.

It is 1205, shortly after the fall of Constantinople.  Treasure is flowing out of the ancient capitol of eastern Rome.  It is a mad scramble for wealth and power.  One treasure, in particular, must never see the light of day.

You are agents of the Machiavellian and octogenarian Doge of Venice, Enrico Dondolo.  Your job is to find a book that has gone missing, and return it to Venice. The small, unadorned book, the Apologia of Saint Paul, is one of the gospels and epistles that were rejected at the Council of Nicaea almost 900 years ago.  It has lain hidden, but not forgotten, in the vaults of the Hagia Sofia for centuries.  It is said, by the few within the church who know of it, that its contents could bring the ruin of the church, and thus mankind. It must be found, and returned to Venice with the utmost discretion and secrecy.  If it cannot be recovered, it must be destroyed.

Unknown to the party, the book is wanted by multiple parties.  Pope Innocent III has struck bargains with both Venice and Genoa for the Apologia's return, offering to the Doge rights in the new Latin empire, lands in Italy, positions in the college of cardinals and other concessions in exchange for its return.  The excommunicated and warlike Emperor Otto IV also wants a piece of the action seeking any leverage that might provide legitimacy for the investiture of Bishops and the return of his domains in Sicily and Apulia, or anything that he can stick in the craw of his hated rival, Pope innocent III.  Hearing of the Pope's move with Venice and Genoa, he has sent agents ahead to Byzantium, and to his cousin who is busy carving a kingdom in Thessalonica. Otto's substantial armies are busy looting Swabia but are poised to invade Italy, for the third time, seize the Iron Crown of Lombardy, and force Innocent to recognize his claim.  Innocent has entered negotiations with both Philip of France and John of England in order to counter Otto's aggression, but as both monarchs are embroiled in baronial wars, it seems unlikely that anything would come of such an alliance (in fact, it led to the battle of Bouvines in 1215).
 
To the contrary, the drunken, debauched and newly enthroned Emperor of Rome (Byzantium), Baldwin IX, could care less about some missing book, he and his followers are plundering the riches of a thousand year empire and having a damn good time doing it.  Orthodox priests are murdered in the street, the imperial palace has become a barracks, and the greatest church in Christendom has become a brothel.  People flee the city.  Crime, mobs (led by Chariot factions), and black markets rule the streets.  Greeks in the countryside seethe with rebellion and Bulgars in the North and Seljuks in the East prepare to invade.  Missionaries, merchants, smugglers, and sellswords flock like ravens onto the carcass of the greatest city in Christendom. Fabulous riches, glory, and death await, and the fate of man's saving grace, the Church of St Peter, may hinge on your quest.

Some ideas for PCs:

*  A trusted and loyal agent of the Doge with multiple talents in espionage and assassination.
*  A dangerous sellsword who was there at the sack of the church and knows of the blind man who kept the sacred books.
*  A scholarly Friar well known for his keen deductive mind and holiness (he actually struggles with faith and is primarily an Aristotelian) who has seen the book and understands some of its mysteries.
*  A plucky Ship's captain.
*  A young templar or hospitalar sworn to find the holy book who finds his heart moved by the suffering Greeks and has his morals tested by a byzantine princess.
*  A Byzantine Stratagos expatriate who still has the loyalty of the Greeks and who has many connections within the city.

Some challenges:

*  The machinations of rivals, such as the Genoese or Otto's cousin, who will be shadowing the parties' movements and questions.
*  The mystery of where the book has gone, and why it might be so important.
*  Personal rivals of individual Pc's above (it is important to create those relationships, both friends and foes, for each character).
*  Pirates!
*  Knives and thugs in the back alleys as they follow the book's trail.
*  Constantinople's underworld, maybe even something like a dungeon.
*  The emperor's debauched court.
*  Treks through the looted countryside where lawlessness and desperation dwell.
*  The brutal oppression of the Greeks might be a sidetrack.
*  Opportunities for wealth, loot and even dominion that could derail the quest.
*  The quest could lead the party to the holy land, to the Mediterranean isles, back to Europe or wherever the GM wanted to go.

etc.

Godde's blood, I would play that campaign tomorrow.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1015612Godde's blood, I would play that campaign tomorrow.

Thank you, sir.

Man, Constantinople in 1205?  I would avoid it like the plague.

(Probably any PC I've ever played, however, would think it the bee's knees.)

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015611Alright, so here is a fairly evolved and somewhat "high level" campaign idea.  I have several more that I will try to post if I have time..

etc.

Sorry, doesn't seem realistic or interesting enough. Also totally not buying those generic fantasy names like "Pope Innocent" (oooh so original!) and the "Doge" of Venice? Seriously, try harder.



(No, seriously, that's a great set-up. Love it!)

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015611Alright, so here is a fairly evolved and somewhat "high level" campaign idea.  I have several more that I will try to post if I have time.

It is 1205, shortly after the fall of Constantinople.  Treasure is flowing out of the ancient capitol of eastern Rome.  It is a mad scramble for wealth and power.  One treasure, in particular, must never see the light of day.
Some ideas for PCs:

*  A trusted and loyal agent of the Doge with multiple talents in espionage and assassination.
*  A dangerous sellsword who was there at the sack of the church and knows of the blind man who kept the sacred books.
*  A scholarly Friar well known for his keen deductive mind and holiness (he actually struggles with faith and is primarily an Aristotelian) who has seen the book and understands some of its mysteries.
*  A plucky Ship's captain.
*  A young templar or hospitalar sworn to find the holy book who finds his heart moved by the suffering Greeks and has his morals tested by a byzantine princess.
*  A Byzantine Stratagos expatriate who still has the loyalty of the Greeks and who has many connections within the city.

Only one decent PC in the lot; the rest are Latin scum who caused all this trouble in the first place. (I hope they all get piles, or something.) :)

Great idea - this is my very favorite period in history! (Christmas in on January 7th this time around, which will tell you which side I'm on in this mess. :)

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1015637Only one decent PC in the lot; the rest are Latin scum who caused all this trouble in the first place. (I hope they all get piles, or something.) :)

Great idea - this is my very favorite period in history! (Christmas in on January 7th this time around, which will tell you which side I'm on in this mess. :)

It's funny how you're a 'Byzantophile'. I'm myself more of a 'Romanophile' and while that also includes the Eastern Empire for the most part I don't think the 4th Crusade is the reason for the fall of it (it was weak and corrupt at that time already which was why the attempt of conquest even happened), and rather see the Latin Empire as a possible good investment if only had the western kingdoms kept more interest in a Catholic Constantinople being  prepped up and allied with to keep the islamic invaders out.

Then again, as a Hungarian I have to note that once Constantinope fell to the Turks it was Hungary which called for a new Crusade and attempted to restore Byzantium to the line of Palaiologos, instead of trying to replace them. Being in the middle, between the Byzantine Greek Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Roman Church we had mostly good relations with Constantinople (with a few exceptions)

I personally have been raised as Roman Catholic, my mother is Greek Catholic, and I have a few relatives in Ukraine who had to flee west due to Russian invasion who are of Greek/Ukrainian Orthodox faith. So I see this mostly as an useless feud in a family among the branches of Christianity even as I became quite a sceptic in the past decade.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1015637Only one decent PC in the lot; the rest are Latin scum who caused all this trouble in the first place. (I hope they all get piles, or something.) :)

Great idea - this is my very favorite period in history! (Christmas in on January 7th this time around, which will tell you which side I'm on in this mess. :)

Well the Latins certainly were the scumbags of the episode, but it's history and there's no Sauron, so there is a lot of gray area to play with.

A GM might want to take the heritage/beliefs/leanings of his players into consideration when designing such a campaign, or not. Regardless, it's pretty evident (from joindrake's post at least) that history can quickly evoke sentimental leanings, responses, and moral questions.

There are of course lots of other options: an Armenian merchant who is funding the expedition with ulterior motives, a trusted Seljuk or Cuman ghulam guardsman, an Ayyubid ambassador... and I'm sure you could come up with your own.

Quote from: joriandrake;1015659It's funny how you're a 'Byzantophile'. I'm myself more of a 'Romanophile' and while that also includes the Eastern Empire for the most part I don't think the 4th Crusade is the reason for the fall of it (it was weak and corrupt at that time already which was why the attempt of conquest even happened), and rather see the Latin Empire as a possible good investment if only had the western kingdoms kept more interest in a Catholic Constantinople being  prepped up and allied with to keep the islamic invaders out.

Then again, as a Hungarian I have to note that once Constantinope fell to the Turks it was Hungary which called for a new Crusade and attempted to restore Byzantium to the line of Palaiologos, instead of trying to replace them. Being in the middle, between the Byzantine Greek Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Roman Church we had mostly good relations with Constantinople (with a few exceptions)

I personally have been raised as Roman Catholic, my mother is Greek Catholic, and I have a few relatives in Ukraine who had to flee west due to Russian invasion who are of Greek/Ukrainian Orthodox faith. So I see this mostly as an useless feud in a family among the branches of Christianity even as I became quite a sceptic in the past decade.

Agreed! It is a useless feud, but there we are.

Campaign-wise, I think it's just jam-packed with wonderful possibilities. I lean to the Byzantines simply because most gamers have no idea who they were, and it's almost as obscure as you can get in gaming. Which, in my opinion, simply adds to the fun.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015667Well the Latins certainly were the scumbags of the episode, but it's history and there's no Sauron, so there is a lot of gray area to play with.

A GM might want to take the heritage/beliefs/leanings of his players into consideration when designing such a campaign, or not. Regardless, it's pretty evident (from joindrake's post at least) that history can quickly evoke sentimental leanings, responses, and moral questions.

There are of course lots of other options: an Armenian merchant who is funding the expedition with ulterior motives, a trusted Seljuk or Cuman ghulam guardsman, an Ayyubid ambassador... and I'm sure you could come up with your own.

Agreed, which is why it's such a great idea for a campaign. :)

I can't imagine the Byzantines would be that obscure.  Especially not to any gamers willing to play a game set in Medieval Europe.

Quote from: TJS;1015699I can't imagine the Byzantines would be that obscure.  Especially not to any gamers willing to play a game set in Medieval Europe.

I used Byzantium as inspiration for one of my main campaign regions and my experience with it was most players didn't really have much sense of the culture or history. But that worked well because it was different enough to provide something new and interesting.

Quote from: S'mon;1015517Re divided princess - I thought Jorian meant literally dividing the princess up into four pieces, Judgement of Solomon style, which would ensure that none of the brothers gets to inherit the promised kingdom. I can imagine an evil/mad fairytale monarch at least plotting to do that.

I kept this more open to situational interpretation.

A 'Lawful Evil' ruler or 'Chaotic Evil' ruler of various cultural origins might take it literally to divide the princess into four pieces, give her to all the brothers as shared wife, let her be taken and raped by the four for a single night. This would depend on their laws, if the King even loves his daughter, if he's insane or somesuch (Chaotic), and the used wording and interpretation would also matter, because perhaps the daughter is a monster and being shared between the brothers might just mean the werewolf (ect) girl gets more food than expected 'as reward'.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1015691Agreed! It is a useless feud, but there we are.

Campaign-wise, I think it's just jam-packed with wonderful possibilities. I lean to the Byzantines simply because most gamers have no idea who they were, and it's almost as obscure as you can get in gaming. Which, in my opinion, simply adds to the fun.

I actually played in a medieval Vampire: The Masquarade campaign during the Latin Empire's existence. My character was at that point in time a bastard son and Greek Catholic priest (was rare at that time) from the Árpád House. His objective was to help stabilize the new realm, make peace between old and new rulers, get the new rulers accept the old Orthodox nobility, and of course convert as many people as possible to Greek Catholicism (with equal balancing/acceptance of Rome and the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople)

Game was full of intrigue and conspiracy, while most players expected warfare my character flourished with diplomacy and making side deals. The fall of the Empire did happen as in history but I made a few allies (and just one enemy due to keeping low profile) and was the start of the loss of faith for him (historical length campaign) which happened in WW1 era.

Avalanche Press put out a great little supplement for gaming in Constantinople, for 3E. You can probably still find it at NobleKnight or something. The maps are garbage, but it's well written and good for getting you geared up for campaign.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1015692Agreed, which is why it's such a great idea for a campaign. :)

Thanks, but I still don't really understand the OP's question, or if my little example has made any progress in answering it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1015515At this point, *I* want to understand.  You're a regular poster to this forum, indeed have several thousand posts over hundreds of threads.  This isn't a d20-only forum; heck, there are several regulars alone devoted to GURPS.  How, in all this time, have you not been exposed to concepts outside your usual playing paradigm?


‡ - One of the numerous ironies here is that one of the first Conan adventures, chronologically ("The Thing In the Crypt"), involves nothing more heroic than shoving a mummy into a fire and has as the great payoff Finding A Broadsword.

Wait, you only started wondering about that now;)?

(And I know, it's weird how most people that cite Conan haven't read the stories, right?)

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015611Alright, so here is a fairly evolved and somewhat "high level" campaign idea.  I have several more that I will try to post if I have time.

It is 1205, shortly after the fall of Constantinople.  Treasure is flowing out of the ancient capitol of eastern Rome.  It is a mad scramble for wealth and power.  One treasure, in particular, must never see the light of day.

You are agents of the Machiavellian and octogenarian Doge of Venice, Enrico Dondolo.  Your job is to find a book that has gone missing, and return it to Venice. The small, unadorned book, the Apologia of Saint Paul, is one of the gospels and epistles that were rejected at the Council of Nicaea almost 900 years ago.  It has lain hidden, but not forgotten, in the vaults of the Hagia Sofia for centuries.  It is said, by the few within the church who know of it, that its contents could bring the ruin of the church, and thus mankind. It must be found, and returned to Venice with the utmost discretion and secrecy.  If it cannot be recovered, it must be destroyed.

Unknown to the party, the book is wanted by multiple parties.  Pope Innocent III has struck bargains with both Venice and Genoa for the Apologia's return, offering to the Doge rights in the new Latin empire, lands in Italy, positions in the college of cardinals and other concessions in exchange for its return.  The excommunicated and warlike Emperor Otto IV also wants a piece of the action seeking any leverage that might provide legitimacy for the investiture of Bishops and the return of his domains in Sicily and Apulia, or anything that he can stick in the craw of his hated rival, Pope innocent III.  Hearing of the Pope's move with Venice and Genoa, he has sent agents ahead to Byzantium, and to his cousin who is busy carving a kingdom in Thessalonica. Otto's substantial armies are busy looting Swabia but are poised to invade Italy, for the third time, seize the Iron Crown of Lombardy, and force Innocent to recognize his claim.  Innocent has entered negotiations with both Philip of France and John of England in order to counter Otto's aggression, but as both monarchs are embroiled in baronial wars, it seems unlikely that anything would come of such an alliance (in fact, it led to the battle of Bouvines in 1215).
 
To the contrary, the drunken, debauched and newly enthroned Emperor of Rome (Byzantium), Baldwin IX, could care less about some missing book, he and his followers are plundering the riches of a thousand year empire and having a damn good time doing it.  Orthodox priests are murdered in the street, the imperial palace has become a barracks, and the greatest church in Christendom has become a brothel.  People flee the city.  Crime, mobs (led by Chariot factions), and black markets rule the streets.  Greeks in the countryside seethe with rebellion and Bulgars in the North and Seljuks in the East prepare to invade.  Missionaries, merchants, smugglers, and sellswords flock like ravens onto the carcass of the greatest city in Christendom. Fabulous riches, glory, and death await, and the fate of man's saving grace, the Church of St Peter, may hinge on your quest.

Some ideas for PCs:

*  A trusted and loyal agent of the Doge with multiple talents in espionage and assassination.
*  A dangerous sellsword who was there at the sack of the church and knows of the blind man who kept the sacred books.
*  A scholarly Friar well known for his keen deductive mind and holiness (he actually struggles with faith and is primarily an Aristotelian) who has seen the book and understands some of its mysteries.
*  A plucky Ship's captain.
*  A young templar or hospitalar sworn to find the holy book who finds his heart moved by the suffering Greeks and has his morals tested by a byzantine princess.
*  A Byzantine Stratagos expatriate who still has the loyalty of the Greeks and who has many connections within the city.

Some challenges:

*  The machinations of rivals, such as the Genoese or Otto's cousin, who will be shadowing the parties' movements and questions.
*  The mystery of where the book has gone, and why it might be so important.
*  Personal rivals of individual Pc's above (it is important to create those relationships, both friends and foes, for each character).
*  Pirates!
*  Knives and thugs in the back alleys as they follow the book's trail.
*  Constantinople's underworld, maybe even something like a dungeon.
*  The emperor's debauched court.
*  Treks through the looted countryside where lawlessness and desperation dwell.
*  The brutal oppression of the Greeks might be a sidetrack.
*  Opportunities for wealth, loot and even dominion that could derail the quest.
*  The quest could lead the party to the holy land, to the Mediterranean isles, back to Europe or wherever the GM wanted to go.

etc.

I'd prefer the other idea. Agent of Kaloyan, emperor of Bulgaria, who wouldn't mind giving the pope a book if it might save him a war with the Latin, or at least improve his influence as a Catholic monarch:p!
(At this point, Kaloyan has accepted to make the Bulgarian church an Uniate one. That won't stop him, later next year, to ally with the Greeks and put a definitive end to the Latin forces:)).

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1015637Only one decent PC in the lot; the rest are Latin scum who caused all this trouble in the first place. (I hope they all get piles, or something.) :)

Great idea - this is my very favorite period in history! (Christmas in on January 7th this time around, which will tell you which side I'm on in this mess. :)

Well, I added another decent non-Latin, Uncle:D!

And CB should enjoy the concept, because the Latins behaved like Orcs are supposed to. So it's easy to make it "mission behind the enemy lines of the Orc empire, which has just conquered a human empire - which, despite its faults, wasn't as bad as Orcs";).
Except, of course, that there isn't a radical racial difference between conquerors and conquered, so D&D would present some additional and needless challenges;).

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015754Thanks, but I still don't really understand the OP's question, or if my little example has made any progress in answering it.

C'mon, Madprofessor, it ain't that hard.

You made an absolutely awesome historical campaign pitch...but...

• Do these seem like 1st Level D&D PCs to you, or would the Doge of Venice have 1st Level PCs in those positions or send them for something this important?
• This campaign is very focused, an extended mission-based campaign despite its city-based sandbox appearance, the PCs aren't choosing what to do - they're choosing how.  Of course, as Gronan and Chirine say, no doubt Mayhem and Hijinks will ensue, especially as this group has to somehow live in a City of Anarchy undercover.
• You basically reinforce Brady's point - you're a Lord or you work for one.
• This is, by design, a short-term campaign.

How about come up with one with these parameters: :D

• The PCs begin not working for anyone, they are basically wanderers.
• They decide for themselves what jobs to take.
• They are not Lords and have no special dispensation to move throughout a feudal kingdom.
• They prefer to be explorers/plunderers, going where civilization is not, and returning with hard-gotten gains.

One thing no one has said so far that I kind of found out in the Harn days is that sometimes Medieval-Authentic starts to look a lot like Swords and Sorcery, specifically Conan.  If you assume the players are not going to be Lords or Clergy or permanently employed by Lords or Clergy, then they could be basically Fahrd/Mouser/Conan S&S wanderers who are hired by the law as often as they are being hunted by it.

It doesn't matter what era you are in, if humans are involved, the People in Power need plausible deniability and agents off the grid to get shit done.  Someone handy with a sword who doesn't care much who ends up on the pointy end will always have a job. In a weird way, it also parallels a Shadowrun campaign once you get into a city.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015800C'mon, Madprofessor, it ain't that hard.

Damn, you can be a hard ass. But even with your answer here I don't understand the distinction you are making from D&D.

QuoteYou made an absolutely awesome historical campaign pitch...but...

• Do these seem like 1st Level D&D PCs to you, or would the Doge of Venice have 1st Level PCs in those positions or send them for something this important?
• This campaign is very focused, an extended mission-based campaign despite its city-based sandbox appearance, the PCs aren't choosing what to do - they're choosing how.  Of course, as Gronan and Chirine say, no doubt Mayhem and Hijinks will ensue, especially as this group has to somehow live in a City of Anarchy undercover.
• You basically reinforce Brady's point - you're a Lord or you work for one.
• This is, by design, a short-term campaign.

I stipulated that it was "high level." It doesn't have to stay mission based and there are lots of hooks to do other things.  I did start it that way, but PCs could be working for their own ends if they made a PC story that fits. It could be long or short term.

Anyway...

QuoteHow about come up with one with these parameters: :D

• The PCs begin not working for anyone, they are basically wanderers.
• They decide for themselves what jobs to take.
• They are not Lords and have no special dispensation to move throughout a feudal kingdom.
• They prefer to be explorers/plunderers, going where civilization is not, and returning with hard-gotten gains.

Easy.  Remove the quest with the book, but the situation is the same, Constantinople 1205.  The party makes beginning characters.  They can be Latins, or Byzantines, or anyone from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.  They could be warriors, sailors, merchants clergy, commoners whatever.It is cosmopolitan city.  Opportunities abound. The city is political turmoil, a state of near lawlessness where might makes right.  Murders and theft are common, people are both fleeing the city and flooding into the city.  The black market has hit a fevered pitch.  Good swords are desperately needed by merchants, would be tyrants, desperate aristocrats, churchmen who fear for their lives, and the chariot factions who rule the streets and the underworld.  But, you don't need to be beholden to anyone: steal a ship, rob a merchant or a church, find a vulnerable aristocrat and hold them for ransom.  Join the underground or one of many rebellions and rise to the top. A man with ambition could win glory, land, riches, titles, women, and adventure.  There are fortunes to be had as treasure flows from thief to patron and back again. If only you could get in on the action.

Ok, you're in a large seedy tavern on the waterfront that is overflowing with thugs and prostitutes.  Other than the coins for your meal and the swords in their scabbards, you are broke.  What do you do?

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015828Damn, you can be a hard ass. But even with your answer here I don't understand the distinction you are making from D&D.



I stipulated that it was "high level." It doesn't have to stay mission based and there are lots of hooks to do other things.  I did start it that way, but PCs could be working for their own ends if they made a PC story that fits. It could be long or short term.

Anyway...



Easy.  Remove the quest with the book, but the situation is the same, Constantinople 1205.  The party makes beginning characters.  They can be Latins, or Byzantines, or anyone from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.  They could be warriors, sailors, merchants clergy, commoners whatever.It is cosmopolitan city.  Opportunities abound. The city is political turmoil, a state of near lawlessness where might makes right.  Murders and theft are common, people are both fleeing the city and flooding into the city.  The black market has hit a fevered pitch.  Good swords are desperately needed by merchants, would be tyrants, desperate aristocrats, churchmen who fear for their lives, and the chariot factions who rule the streets and the underworld.  But, you don't need to be beholden to anyone: steal a ship, rob a merchant or a church, find a vulnerable aristocrat and hold them for ransom.  Join the underground or one of many rebellions and rise to the top. A man with ambition could win glory, land, riches, titles, women, and adventure.  There are fortunes to be had as treasure flows from thief to patron and back again. If only you could get in on the action.

Ok, you're in a large seedy tavern on the waterfront that is overflowing with thugs and prostitutes.  Other than the coins for your meal and the swords in their scabbards, you are broke.  What do you do?

Ok, so you picked a city campaign in a city of anarchy.  How about shifting to England and picking a time period and place lets say, oh after 1066 and where it doesn't resemble Apocalypse Now. :D

Well, medieval England has the post-Conquest turmoil, the turmoil of Stephen and Matilda, the turmoil of the Barons' War, the turmoil of the Scots incursions, the turmoil of the Peasant's Revolt, the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses...

So, sorry, looks like Apocalypse Then to me.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015828Damn, you can be a hard ass. But even with your answer here I don't understand the distinction you are making from D&D.

Have you ever read anything Forgotten Realms or World of Greyhawk?

Here's a quick outline because I don't have time to write the thesis. (For anyone else but Madprofessor reading this, I'm doing it quickly, so I'm sure the proper amount of linguisitic qualifiers will not be present so while you can get your Rainman on picking all the nits out, how about not? :D)

1. Unless you actually have fantasy races, the Points of Light campaign doesn't work (unless you want to put in human savages/pagans/the next country over as a stand-in for orcs).  There is no constant and never-ending existential threat to civilization from humanoids, giants, monsters, etc. if they don't exist, (not even if you believe in them).  Can you mimic something like that with a 43AD setup or Roman Germania?  Yeah, kind of, but it's not the same.

I can't stress enough how fundamental the changes are that this makes to a setting.  In a world with humanoids and monsters, there are those who are society, those who want to destroy society, and those who stand between. In a world with no humanoids/monsters, there are no "destroy society" types, there are only those who want to replace it with their own (other civilized societies), those who want to feed off it (criminals), and those who contend with it for resources (uncivilized societies).  This is not a Greyhawk, Realms, or any other standard D&D world.

Imagine the Warhammer World.  Now eliminate the hordes of Beastmen lurking in the deep forests and the Skaven skulking through the underbellies of civilization.  Going to change the setting much?

2. As a result of #1, the one way D&D characters are guaranteed jobs, glory, adventure, etc namely by leaving civilization, encountering monsters or the mythic underworld, killing things and taking their stuff (or just taking their stuff) is gone.  You can raid Picts and Germans until you rot, but ain't gettin' rich doing it unless you're selling their scalps, selling their slaves or herd animals or getting granted their land by someone (and all that is Roman anyway).  Once those who seek to destroy society are gone, then the absolute need for those who stand between goes away.  You don't get a pass as an "Adventurer" coming through our village because we may need to call on you when the Orcs of Mount Whatever start rising again.  We want you the hell and gone because you're trouble.  The Powers that Be don't want you around because you're a threat to their rule.  Instead of being a necessary part of functioning society as a whole, you really become a liability to society as a whole.  You become necessary primarily to those who want to circumvent the rules or want deniable assets, ie. criminals.

3. So, the "Professional Adventurer" paradigm that the entire west of Forgotten Realms and other D&D worlds is based on does not exist.  Mercenary companies are not the same thing, they're expected to actually stand in a battle line now and again.  A Lord and his retinue work because they don't actually have to live only off of what they do.

4. As a result, the Authentic-Medieval Historical Adventurer is either a high-ranking member of society or bound to one, or is a wandering merc/bandit/thug/brigand/ronin/thief depending on what feeds him that day.  Which is great for an author when you want to write a Conan tale, a little harder passing off a group of 6 as living that life.

5. People heavily educated in Medieval history probably always run more Medieval-Authentic D&D campaigns and apparently aren't aware of how the entire published hobby does it differently.  :D

TL/DR If you're going to go very subtle with the fantasy and the magic, and remain Medieval-Authentic, you are not going to have the same type of parties doing the same type of things they do in a bog-standard D&D world.  Will there be a Venn diagram? Yes.  But there will be some fundamental changes to campaign setup.  Which all the best detailed examples so far have shown.

If it weren't different, why the hell did Pundit even write the thing and why are people buying it?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1015838Well, medieval England has the post-Conquest turmoil, the turmoil of Stephen and Matilda, the turmoil of the Barons' War, the turmoil of the Scots incursions, the turmoil of the Peasant's Revolt, the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses...

So, sorry, looks like Apocalypse Then to me.

Yeah, which means you have to handpick the specific historical period in order to manufacture the resultant level of Chaos in Society that allows that kind of paradigm to occur.

In Greyhawk it doesn't matter how calm and boring the interior of Furyondy is, there's the Horned Society.

Well, I don't understand why you would need things to be exactly the same as regular D&D.

Isn't the point that it's different?

The question was whether you could have adventures, and it's clear now that you can -- they just aren't the Forgotten Realms style adventures that you're describing.

Though I imagine being somewhere that's basically always in turmoil, like the Middle East during the Crusades, would give you plenty of that freedom to do what you want.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015843Well, I don't understand why you would need things to be exactly the same as regular D&D.

You wouldn't. That's the point.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015843Isn't the point that it's different?

It is, which is why I'm so amused at all the historians telling me there won't be any differences.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015843The question was whether you could have adventures, and it's clear now that you can -- they just aren't the Forgotten Realms style adventures that you're describing.

Which is what I knew when I started the thread, I just wanted the experts to show us how it's done - ironically, more for posters like yourself.  You're welcome. :D

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015843Though I imagine being somewhere that's basically always in turmoil, like the Middle East during the Crusades, would give you plenty of that freedom to do what you want.

The closer you cleave to history and the more subtle your fantasy is, the more you have to engineer that kind of setup through historical knowledge, which is essentially what I asked the historians to do and what they have been doing.

Ah, so you're saying that with normal D&D, almost any scenario you can present will enable traditional D&D adventuring because of the way the setting is set up. "Points of light," etc.

But for historical D&D, this only works in a narrow slice that you have to engineer and that requires some explanation for those who lack history knowledge.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1015848Ah, so you're saying that with normal D&D, almost any scenario you can present will enable traditional D&D adventuring because of the way the setting is set up. "Points of light," etc.

But for historical D&D, this only works in a narrow slice that you have to engineer and that requires some explanation for those who lack history knowledge.

In essence, yes.  By itself, D&D has tons of fantasy elements, literally zero human history and has a wide variety of adventuring options open due to the types of settings this typically creates.

Once you start dialing down the fantasy and dialing up the history, the variety of adventuring options and campaign paradigms narrows.  Once you get to subtle fantasy on Medieval Earth, you've chopped out a wide swath of campaign paradigm due to the fundamental changes.

Is there still a lot to do?  Of course, there's shitloads, even if it's different.  However, you lose a lot with the loss of standard D&Disms.  What you gain are things specific to history that you could reskin to good effect as Estar has shown in some of his posts in other threads, but probably have their greatest effect placed in historical context (and we've had some good ones so far)...provided people know that context.

For example, you might have been excited at Madprofessor's campaign pitch, but Gronan messed his shorts (probably in every way possible).

Another way to put it, Mac, is that it will be a Venn Diagram.  Once you start dialing down the fantasy and start dialing up the history, you will be left with three areas:

1. Campaigns appropriate only for traditional D&D fantasy and not Medieval-Authentic campaigns.
2. Campaigns appropriate to either (with the probable change of the PCs needing patronage of some sort, or good contacts, or being well-placed themselves).
3. Campaigns specific to Medieval Earth (that would need to be reskinned to work in a fantasy D&D environment and might lose some of the resonance and impact the historical version would have had for people aware of the historical significance.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015024Why are you throwing this strawman at me?  Seriously.  I was talking about ADVENTURERS!  Not village life.

Jeeze, it's like saying sitcoms or character dramas are narrow and monochromatic, and I know I'm not saying that.

If you're now admitting that there was a significant number of people who had more colorful lives than pure servile drudgery, why do you keep wanting to present the argument that PCs in a Medieval-Authentic game would need to be the ones living in servile drudgery?

Quote from: jhkim;1015133I'm really not clear on what the issue or disagreement is here.

That Brady doesn't like OSR games, or D&D, or just that I'm doing L&D, and he wants to present medieval-authentic gaming as being either just like D&D, or a miserable unplayable boredom, and discounts any other possibility.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1015214Ok, that's fine, but many of the assumptions being thrown around here are completely wrong, and I am not sure how you build an "authentic" setting/game about medieval Europe based on myths and ahistorical assumptions.

First off, to answer your original questions, we have to narrow what we mean by medieval society.  The medieval period was nothing if not diverse. What assumptions can we make about the societies of a fragmented continental geography over the course of a thousand years? Are we talking 14th century France, or 8th century Anglo-Saxon England? Is this the Spain of Charles Martel, EL Cid, or of the the fall of Granada?  What do the city states of northern Italy during the investiture controversy have in common with Norman England, the Byzantine/Bulgarian frontier, or the Ireland of Brian Boru? Was the faith of the Teutonic crusaders the same as the faith of Cluny, the Cathars or St. Francis? Did the Venetians, the Kieven Rus, or the Celtic fringe of Britain not trade? Were the Black forest or the Ardennes in the heart of western Europe not a wilderness or at least a borderland? I could go on and on and on.

If we reduce the entire period, including all of the above, to a ridiculous set of universal "assumptions" about travel, social mobility, frontiers, and oppression, then there is nothing "authentic" about it at all.

Lion & Dragon is modeled on England and western Europe, 1350-1485.  You can play earlier, or later, or in a different part of Europe, but the further you go from that temporal and geographical range the more you'll need to adapt some things.

Quote from: Voros;1015220Rather than arguing about the history of the middle ages how about presenting some examples of adventures and how they differ from standard D&D?

Sure, here's one (the first of many) for Lion & Dragon, called The Child Eaters (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/225294/RPGPundit-Presents-5-The-Child-Eaters).


Here's one for Dark Albion called The Ghost of Jack Cade on London Bridge (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/153587/DAA1---The-Ghost-of-Jack-Cade-on-London-Bridge), written by Dominique Crouzet.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015459So where's the 'party' (as in a group of players) in this?  What can they do?  It sounds so very small, compared to just going out and exploring the world as you can in the frontier style of D&D.

There's an entire appendix dedicated to borderland adventuring in Lion & Dragon.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015482Now, as I don't have L&D, am I correct in thinking that there is no Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogues?  Or rather, they're smaller focused classes?  (I'm assuming because it's a D&D derivative, please correct me if I'm wrong.)  Are there classes at all?

You are not correct.

There's Clerics, Fighters, Magisters and Thieves.  Also, optionally, "Cymri" (gypsy travelers) and "Scots Men" (barbarians).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015553Not to mention that magic would completely destroy the setting to pieces.

No it doesn't.  Magic and miracles were a routine part of the medieval paradigm. Shit, both the clerical miracles and magister's magical techniques are directly lifted off of medieval understandings of the same.

To say nothing of demons, elves, and other magical creatures.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015831Ok, so you picked a city campaign in a city of anarchy.  How about shifting to England and picking a time period and place lets say, oh after 1066 and where it doesn't resemble Apocalypse Now. :D

Why would you do that?  I mean you could, sure, but why won't you pick the times and places where there's the most opportunity in the historical context for all kinds of adventuring and danger to take place?

So like, the Anarchy, or the Hundred Years War, or the War of the Roses.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016052Why would you do that?  I mean you could, sure, but why won't you pick the times and places where there's the most opportunity in the historical context for all kinds of adventuring and danger to take place?

So like, the Anarchy, or the Hundred Years War, or the War of the Roses.

Simply making the point that one of the differences is that you have to focus on certain historical hotspots (or create them in an alt setting) to get the standard level of danger and chaos of a standard D&D setting.  For example, pick your most stable, civilized nation in Greyhawk or the Realms.  Are there orcs in the forests and giants in the hills or the like?  Probably, yeah.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016065Simply making the point that one of the differences is that you have to focus on certain historical hotspots (or create them in an alt setting) to get the standard level of danger and chaos of a standard D&D setting.  For example, pick your most stable, civilized nation in Greyhawk or the Realms.  Are there orcs in the forests and giants in the hills or the like?  Probably, yeah.

Gameworlds are generally designed with adventure in mind. If there were just swaths of peaceful territory with nothing to do really, it would get pretty dull (unless there is some other thing to focus on that is exciting, like a cut throat salt trade or something---or something incredibly specific). With history you tend to pick the times that lend themselves to adventure or you throw in adventuring conceits.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016044Sure, here's one (the first of many) for Lion & Dragon, called The Child Eaters (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/225294/RPGPundit-Presents-5-The-Child-Eaters).


Here's one for Dark Albion called The Ghost of Jack Cade on London Bridge (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/153587/DAA1---The-Ghost-of-Jack-Cade-on-London-Bridge), written by Dominique Crouzet.

Thanks, I've heard good think about the Crouzet and have added it to my wishlist, I'll also check out The Child Eaters which I hadn't seen yet.

This thread has now entered page 26 of an argument that is basically fueled by the critiques of a new game, offered by someone who hasn't seen it or bothered to learn anything about it.

I don't think the OP was a critique but a question and more broadly about a style of play that exists outside of Pundit's work.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1016111This thread has now entered page 26 of an argument that is basically fueled by the critiques of a new game, offered by someone who hasn't seen it or bothered to learn anything about it.

The fact that you've completely and totally missed the point of this thread probably has something to do with your repeated attempts to threadcrap it.

If anything, the various detailed examples put up so far should help someone see the possibilities of such a setting, especially if they looked at standard D&D campaign setups and were wondering how to proceed, seeing some of those avenues cut off.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016159The fact that you've completely and totally missed the point of this thread probably has something to do with your repeated attempts to threadcrap it.

To be honest, I think most people missed the point of the thread.

That is probably because the way the OP was phrased made it sound like a challenge.

Quote from: soltakss;1016160To be honest, I think most people missed the point of the thread.

Do you miss the point of the various "What do you do in Glorantha?" discussions that have been on the internet since...the internet was born?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015841Have you ever read anything Forgotten Realms or World of Greyhawk?

No.

I suspect this is the cause of more incongruity of point of view than anything to do with history.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1015842Yeah, which means you have to handpick the specific historical period in order to manufacture the resultant level of Chaos in Society that allows that kind of paradigm to occur.

In Greyhawk it doesn't matter how calm and boring the interior of Furyondy is, there's the Horned Society.

No, it's more like you have to handpick the specific historical period to find more than two years when shit like that WASN'T happening.

That's just the ones that occurred to me instantly.

There is another reason that I think the whole question of "history" can be a scarlet Clupea.

I play fighters.  I always play fighters.  In the 45 years since I was first introduced to "Greyhawk," I've played four magic users that I can remember, and one cleric.  I may have played a thief, I don't remember.

I play fighters.  It's what I like to play.  And somebody who can use a sword will always find somebody who want to pay for it being used.  And once you get some positive reputation and some money, you can always do the knight-errant thing if you want.  Or wander around looking for people who will pay for your services.  Or something else.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016043Lion & Dragon is modeled on England and western Europe, 1350-1485.  You can play earlier, or later, or in a different part of Europe, but the further you go from that temporal and geographical range the more you'll need to adapt some things.

Cool, this is nice and specific: post-plague western Europe, bastard feudalism and all of that.  One of the points that I was trying to argue earlier is that you can't really make a setting out of "the middle ages" covering a 1000 years and a continent plus.  With history, you need to zoom the lens in to something coherent and manageable.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016182There is another reason that I think the whole question of "history" can be a scarlet Clupea.

I play fighters.  I always play fighters.  In the 45 years since I was first introduced to "Greyhawk," I've played four magic users that I can remember, and one cleric.  I may have played a thief, I don't remember.

I play fighters.  It's what I like to play.  And somebody who can use a sword will always find somebody who want to pay for it being used.  And once you get some positive reputation and some money, you can always do the knight-errant thing if you want.  Or wander around looking for people who will pay for your services.  Or something else.

Then you might enjoy L+D more than most, as its fighters are some of the fightiest fighters in any D+D variant. The combat system is not particularly complex (though it does have a nicely nuanced parry rule). But the fighter class just ends up much tougher than any other class. A couple of 2-3 level fighters would have no qualms about bossing around a dozen or more 0-level characters or members of other classes (I'm including barbarians, er 'Scotsmen', as fighters here). That probably sounds about right. A couple of experienced knights should have nothing to worry about from a dozen lightly armored goofs.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016065Simply making the point that one of the differences is that you have to focus on certain historical hotspots (or create them in an alt setting) to get the standard level of danger and chaos of a standard D&D setting.  For example, pick your most stable, civilized nation in Greyhawk or the Realms.  Are there orcs in the forests and giants in the hills or the like?  Probably, yeah.

There are only orcs in the forest if you want orcs in the forest.  You can easily create a fantasy place of "boring land" where everybody is happy-lawful-good and there is nothing to do.

Both history and Greyhawk are imaginary spaces.  The difference is that Greyhawk was purpose built for adventuring parties to do D&D stuff, and history contains a lot of pre-built architecture that may or may not be conducive to RPG style adventure.

However, history is still an imaginary space.  Is my high-adventure version of 1205 Constantinople really accurate?  Well, no, or at least probably not, but it contains enough of the essential structures, components and context to make it plenty "authentic" enough for an unmistakable gaming experience.  

The same can be done with any historical setting, as Gronan has pointed out. You would be harder pressed to create the absurdity of the "boring land" above in history then you would in a fantasy realm because all of that architecture of things actually happening gets in the way.

But I think the crux of the argument is that you seem to see a setting like Greyhawk as having "nothing to do with human history," as if fantasy is in a separate imaginary bubble that occasionally intersects with history in a Venn.  To a historian, fantasy is just history with certain elements dialed up and certain restrictions removed, just as science fiction is just history projected into the future.  Greyhawk is based on history.  There are thousands of points and assumptions, often unspoken, that root Greyhawk firmly in history: economics, technology, politics, war - all are built on historical models whether the gamer knows it or not.  Truthfully, there is more history there than fantasy. Orcs aren't that different from Saxon raiders, historical forests were dangerous and scary too, and people saw the effects of magic everywhere they looked. And feudal hierarchy was never as confining and rigid as you and Brady have claimed. To be clear though, it's not just Greyhawk, its all fantasy. Middle Earth is heavily grounded in history, as Tolkien himself happily admitted. REH wanted to write historical fiction, but didn't want to bother learning history beyond what was cool, so he created the Hyborian Age, a sort of faux history. Even the young kingdoms are historically based, it just uses biography and a bit of LSD as the primary lens of examination. History is about human experience, and it may not even be possible to base a setting on something else (at least I can't think of one).

The other reason why we might not have been seeing eye to eye is that most non-historians have a somewhat distorted view of what historians do and what we actually know.  Without going into a lecture on theory and methods, there are a lot more questions and grey areas then there are solid facts, so history is not as concrete as many people believe.  Yes, there are libraries full of details, but it is not enough.  Historians use a lot of different tools to fill in and bridge the gaps.  One of the most important tools is imagination.  The process of understanding history is not all that different from the process of creating a fantasy rpg setting, asking questions about how the different known facts of the setting interact.  As far as I can tell, the process of imagining what PCs might do in 13th century Denmark is identical to the process of of imagining what PCs do in 16th century Gondor, or From the Ashes era Geof.

So, speaking for myself at least, it is hard to see history and fantasy as two separate spheres as you have demonstrated, and the difference is not as sharp to me as it seems to be to you. They are highly related imaginary spaces with different architectural details.  As you have pointed out, that architecture is important. It's what makes one game like Beowulf, and another like Flash Gordon. There is a hell of a lot more architecture in history then there is in any other setting, and that might seem like it sets it apart. For those with less of a grasp, that immense detail might seem potentially confining, while those who grok it see greater potential depth, but imaginary spaces are equally infinitely divisable, and the same could be said for any setting.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016216So, speaking for myself at least, it is hard to see history and fantasy as two separate spheres as you have demonstrated, and the difference is not as sharp to me as it seems to be to you. They are highly related imaginary spaces with different architectural details.  As you have pointed out, that architecture is important. It's what makes one game like Beowulf, and another like Flash Gordon. There is a hell of a lot more architecture in history then there is in any other setting, and that might seem like it sets it apart. For those with less of a grasp, that immense detail might seem potentially confining, while those who grok it see greater potential depth, but imaginary spaces are equally infinitely divisable, and the same could be said for any setting.

Bloody fucking this.

You left out one point in your excellent essay, though.  Most people's high school and undergraduate history teachers were really, really shitty teachers, so in the course of getting their minimum requirement of history, most people have assumed that since the class was boring, history was boring.

And honestly, "Life in a Medieval Barony" is 95 years old and available on Project Gutenburg.  The Gies' series of "Life in a Medieval Whatever" series is between 30 and 40 years old.  And there has been a TON of similar books written.

Honest to Crom, I've lost patience with lazy players who expect every fucking thing to be spoon fed to them.  I started reading about medieval history the week after my first CHAINMAIL game, because I wanted to know what was going on so I could play better.

No, Big Green didn't do that, but he's collateral damage in this rant.

@Madprofessor - Actually, I didn't say they were two separate spheres, I said it was a Venn diagram, and the two circles grow farther apart the more you dial down the fantasy and dial up the history.  Hell, Harn has wizards, polytheistic clerics, elves, dwarves, and orcs, and even that setting has different enough campaign assumptions and setups from bog standard D&D settings due to the "Medieval Authentic-ness" that "What do PCs do?" is a fairly common Harn thread.

@Gronan - You're right, you having never read anything Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms has a lot more to do with it than me having not read Life in a Medieval Barony. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016256@Madprofessor - Actually, I didn't say they were two separate spheres, I said it was a Venn diagram, and the two circles grow farther apart the more you dial down the fantasy and dial up the history.  Hell, Harn has wizards, polytheistic clerics, elves, dwarves, and orcs, and even that setting has different enough campaign assumptions and setups from bog standard D&D settings due to the "Medieval Authentic-ness" that "What do PCs do?" is a fairly common Harn thread.

Bah, if you read up, the Venn was what I was talking about.  No matter though.  We are starting to speak in abstractions and that can get pointless quick.  I was just trying to understand your perspective, and to share mine, since you asked the historians here to explain.  It is probably simpler then I am making it out to be. Anyway, it was enjoyable, but I doubt if it is worth arguing further. Much respect, Green one.  Let me know if I can over-complicate any more questions for you:D

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016265Bah, if you read up, the Venn was what I was talking about.  No matter though.  We are starting to speak in abstractions and that can get pointless quick.  I was just trying to understand your perspective, and to share mine, since you asked the historians here to explain.  It is probably simpler then I am making it out to be. Anyway, it was enjoyable, but I doubt if it is worth arguing further. Much respect, Green one.  Let me know if I can over-complicate any more questions for you:D

Hehe, remember, you asked...:D

Start with this:
Historical Constraints

• England post-1066
• Not during The Anarchy, Hundred Years or Rose Wars
• They can't leave Great Britain to go to Ireland or the Continent where it's a war-torn shithole. :D

and add this:
Bog Standard D&D Party Assumptions

• The PCs begin not working for anyone, they are basically wanderers.
• They decide for themselves what jobs to take.
• They are not Lords, have no interest in being the retainers of one long term, and have no special dispensation to move throughout a feudal kingdom.
• They prefer to get rich by being explorers/plunderers, going where civilization is not, and returning with hard-gotten gains.

If you want a more D&D style group of freelance troubleshooters the best place to set it would be in some area experiencing a breakdown of central authority (The Anarchy, the Time of Troubles, the Hundred Years War) in that in a lot of areas there are big stacks of problems and the people who should be solving them aren't so even a pretty small armed band can make a big difference.

But in general I'd rather run something with a theme both in D&D and in the historical campaigns which restricts what kind of adventures people can go on but gives them a better focus. I'd love to run a campaign with Clubmen PCs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clubmen) or a Shakespeare based on in which the PCs are travelling players hired to put on propaganda plays by various nobles and getting sucked in to local politics before moving on.

Really anyone interested in medieval gaming should read "The Dragon Waiting" by John M Ford.  It's a masterwork of reworking medieval characters and situations.  It even contains a party who basically meet in an inn.

The main group of characters contains:
A welsh wizard
A german artillerist (who is also a vampire)
An exiled byzantine noble, now a mercenary.
and a doctor from Medici Florence.

The plot revolves around defeating the Byzantine empire (It's alternate history) by helping Richard the III defeat the Byzantine's puppet candidate Henry Tudor at the battle of Bosworth.

So the historical setting must include a constraint that the PCs cannot leave civilization, but the fantasy setting has no such constraint? That is a damn  silly constraint.

And, if Bog Standard D&D assumes that there is not one single area of civilization but the world is monsters all over, I'm really glad I've avoided Bog Standard D&D for nearly 42 years.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016272Hehe, remember, you asked...:D

Start with this:
Historical Constraints

• England post-1066
• Not during The Anarchy, Hundred Years or Rose Wars
• They can't leave Great Britain to go to Ireland or the Continent where it's a war-torn shithole. :D

and add this:
Bog Standard D&D Party Assumptions

• The PCs begin not working for anyone, they are basically wanderers.
• They decide for themselves what jobs to take.
• They are not Lords, have no interest in being the retainers of one long term, and have no special dispensation to move throughout a feudal kingdom.
• They prefer to get rich by being explorers/plunderers, going where civilization is not, and returning with hard-gotten gains.

OK, I'll play.

It's 1188, the most boring year that I could come up with in Medieval British history. Henry II is at the end of his long successful reign. The Angevin empire is the most prosperous and well-governed kingdom in medieval history. There are wars and raiding on the Scottish border, Wales is in flames, Ireland is recently conquered and being reorganized, warfare is endemic in France, the crusades are in full swing with the loss of Jerusalem, and northern England is still seething with animosity after a century of Norman brutality, but society is as prosperous, peaceful and as iconically feudal as it ever was.  Trade flourishes. English wool woven in Flemish mills clothes the world.  The population is expanding.  New lands are being tamed, swamps are drained and forests cleared. New cities and towns are rising, as is a money economy. The church in Rome has its troubles, but England is a model of a well-groomed flock.  It is as close to classic medieval as you get.

Government in England is more local than hierarchical. The king, of course, lives in France and sees England primarily as a source of income.  He makes his revenue primarily off of trade, tolls, and royal privilege, leaving taxation to the barons.  Similarly, the Archbishop rules distantly from Canterbury.  For the moment the Barons are loyal to the crown, but they are also almost completely autonomous.  The king will be dead in a year, and there is no clear succession between the three sons of Eleanor. The third Crusade is just around the corner, as is the oppression of king John, the loss of the empire, the Baron's War and the Magna Carta. So the apparent peace and prosperity will be short lived.

The PCs must be commoners and not in the service of any lord so here are some suggestions:
* A strapping blacksmith's apprentice on his way to newly founded town in search of work.
* A Welshman making his way as an entertainer. He's actually had considerable training as a bard (an actual bard).
* A squire of common stock who has lost his knight and is not sure where to go.
* A physician/alchemist from London who is searching for a remedy.
* A West Isles gallowglas mercenary looking for work.
* A monk with a bad drinking habit and a violent temper who everyone agrees should seek grace in the holy land.
* A Saxon hunter/charcoal burner who knows the forests like the back of his hands but rarely mingles with civilized folk.
* A wise woman who has the knowledge of generations of healers, wizards, and witches.
* A serving wench with a quick wit, a quicker dagger, and big ambitions.

...and so on.

You all start at the manor of an absentee lord on the Roman road in Warwickshire.  As the manor has frequent travelers, and the farmland is poor, the tenant in chief who is away in France has allowed the steward and bailiff to set up shop as a rest and toll station for travelers.  The party meets for the first time on a rainy night.

And then we have the rumors:
* There is a local feud between families that has embroiled the area and the party in a private war and vendettas.
* Bandits have taken residence in the local woods.
* There is an old burnt out Saxon hall in the hills, rumor is that the lord has buried his treasure there, but the place is haunted.
* The villagers and local priest secretly worship old pagan gods.
* There is a Templar here trying to persuade people to take up the cross.
* Wolves or some other viscous beast have been devouring sheep, and they have recently taken a child.
* A local Knight has a habit of capturing and disposing of beautiful young maidens. There is a Jewish merchant here with a daughter who has become pray.  He would pay handsomely for her rescue or a little revenge.

...and so on.

If you want a murder hobo D&D game in medieval Europe, you can have it, even if you do reduce the setting to absurd parameters. As I said, like any setting, it is an imaginary space that is infinitely divisible.

Quote from: Bren;1016392So the historical setting must include a constraint that the PCs cannot leave civilization, but the fantasy setting has no such constraint? That is a damn  silly constraint.

And, if Bog Standard D&D assumes that there is not one single area of civilization but the world is monsters all over, I'm really glad I've avoided Bog Standard D&D for nearly 42 years.

Fucking hell... Thank you!

Quote from: Bren;1016392So the historical setting must include a constraint that the PCs cannot leave civilization, but the fantasy setting has no such constraint? That is a damn  silly constraint.

Deliberately misinterpret much? Sheesh.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016395Fucking hell... Thank you!

Dude, seriously.  You mean you're admitting you can't come up with an English campaign pitch outside one of the three most horrifically chaotic civil war periods in English History while actually staying in England?  Without the PCs being retainers of a rich Lord, and actually doing something remotely close to what D&D PCs can do in most published campaigns?

Really?  Because that's all I'm asking, that's what those constraints mean.  I don't know what the fuck you two are on about, honestly.

You're not exactly defeating Brady's assertions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016396Deliberately misinterpret much? Sheesh.

You did specify that:

QuoteThey can't leave Great Britain to go to Ireland or the Continent where it's a war-torn shithole.

I interpreted it the same way, and I'm not sure what else you could have meant.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016400Dude, seriously.  You mean you're admitting you can't come up with an English campaign pitch outside one of the three most horrifically chaotic civil war periods in English History while actually staying in England?  Without the PCs being retainers of a rich Lord, and actually doing something remotely close to what D&D PCs can do in most published campaigns?

Really?  Because that's all I'm asking, that's what those constraints mean.  I don't know what the fuck you two are on about, honestly.

I just did. Did you read? This is not a chaotic civil war period.  It's within England.  In fact, its within the cozy heart of England in a time of peace and plenty because that seems to be one of your absurd stipulations.   The PCs are not lords or retainers of lords. The pitch was "Here is the setting (and a bunch of historical details). You are interesting commoners with few ties and some ambition. You meet in a tavern. Here are a shit load of rumors.  What do you do?" I can't imagine how I have miscommunicated.

That pitch sounds fun to play.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016395Fucking hell... Thank you!

You already did it, and it apparently wasn't hard, so why are you crying about the constraints, they obviously were not unfair.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016394The PCs must be commoners and not in the service of any lord so here are some suggestions:
* A strapping blacksmith's apprentice on his way to newly founded town in search of work.
* A Welshman making his way as an entertainer. He's actually had considerable training as a bard (an actual bard).
* A squire of common stock who has lost his knight and is not sure where to go.
* A physician/alchemist from London who is searching for a remedy.
* A West Isles gallowglas mercenary looking for work.
* A monk with a bad drinking habit and a violent temper who everyone agrees should seek grace in the holy land.
* A Saxon hunter/charcoal burner who knows the forests like the back of his hands but rarely mingles with civilized folk.
* A wise woman who has the knowledge of generations of healers, wizards, and witches.
* A serving wench with a quick wit, a quicker dagger, and big ambitions.

...and so on.

You all start at the manor of an absentee lord on the Roman road in Warwickshire.  As the manor has frequent travelers, and the farmland is poor, the tenant in chief who is away in France has allowed the steward and bailiff to set up shop as a rest and toll station for travelers.  The party meets for the first time on a rainy night.

And then we have the rumors:
* There is a local feud between families that has embroiled the area and the party in a private war and vendettas.
* Bandits have taken residence in the local woods.
* There is an old burnt out Saxon hall in the hills, rumor is that the lord has buried his treasure there, but the place is haunted.
* The villagers and local priest secretly worship old pagan gods.
* There is a Templar here trying to persuade people to take up the cross.
* Wolves or some other viscous beast have been devouring sheep, and they have recently taken a child.
* A local Knight has a habit of capturing and disposing of beautiful young maidens. There is a Jewish merchant here with a daughter who has become pray.  He would pay handsomely for her rescue or a little revenge.

...and so on.

Since these are two human families and not a squabbling/warring goblin and hobgoblin band, what trouble can the PCs get into by taking sides either by being hired or simply getting involved?

Ok, since the Bandits are people and not Orcs (or Pagan Barbarians, or Heretics), do the PCs have the legal right to dispense justice to the bandits, some of whom are statistically speaking probably runaway villeins, killing them if necessary?

It's not an Ogre capturing women, but a Knight, so, what about the pillaging Knight?  Under what authority do they do the bidding of a Jew killing a Christian Knight and what consequences might they encounter?

Since the Saxon was a Lord, that land was granted by someone to that Saxon, who granted the land and who has the current rights to that Hall?  The PCs come back with treasure, how much are they going to have to immediately cough up to the local lord in taxes and how likely is the King/Duke/Count/Baron that owns that land to confiscate the treasure once he hears of the recovery?

Your example was quite well done, showing how you can do a standard D&D setup quite easily, you even had them meet in an Inn and gave it a good rationale, Kudos.  See, however, how even a standard D&D type party, meeting in an inn, hearing rumors about lots of things to do are not going to have the freedom of a standard D&D party.  Their enemies are not absolutely outside society, and the places with treasure are not "never owned by man or abandoned centuries or millennia ago wilderness".

These differences are going to change how the campaign begins, and how it unfolds.  
Not impossible.
Not unfun.
Not requiring multiple PhDs.
Just different.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016403I just did. Did you read? This is not a chaotic civil war period.  It's within England.  In fact, its within the cozy heart of England in a time of peace and plenty because that seems to be one of your absurd stipulations.   The PCs are not lords or retainers of lords. The pitch was "Here is the setting (and a bunch of historical details). You are interesting commoners with few ties and some ambition. You meet in a tavern. Here are a shit load of rumors.  What do you do?" I can't imagine how I have miscommunicated.

You didn't, my view just went to the bottom of the page.  I see you answered quite well, so I don't know why you were bitching about constraints that you easily followed.

Although, if you think "can't be in an active warzone" is an absurd stipulation, you're not exactly helping the "how cool medieval settings can be" side.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016404That pitch sounds fun to play.

Thank you kindly, good sir.  With all of my bickering with mean green, my goal here really is to help show some things that you can actually do in a historical game (so I am really working towards his purposes and intentionally playing into his evil scheme).  I'm trying to show that history doesn't have to be absurdly limiting to be authentic.  You can play the kind of game that you want to play.  There is room enough, even with all of the detail of history, to make it happen.

Greenie, I honestly am having trouble following this whole thing.

First, even in OD&D, PCs are never totally without restraint; there are references to taxation both before and after getting a stronghold.  The PCs paying taxes, that is.  Paying taxes means somebody who is not you is in charge.

And what's wrong with being part of a hierarchy?  Who you are in the Middle Ages is defined by who protects you.  There are no "police" or even "city guards."

Further, there is almost no communication.  If you go to Paris dressed fairly well and claim to be the third son of Sir Thomas Grey of Warwickshire, and your manners and mannerisms fit in, NOBODY IS GOING TO QUESTION YOU, even if you're lying through your fucking teeth.  There is no such thing as an ID.

I will take other peoples' word that "MURDERHOBO WE BOW TO NO ONE" PCs in D&D are common and popular, but it frankly sounds like a shit way to play to me.

Hell, you can even do a bog-standard dungeon crawl.  If there are rumors of buried treasure in that old Saxon hill fort ruin two miles from the village, people will go after it.  Even peasants had spare time.  And if you succeed, you will have money, and money equals mobility.  That's a big thing; just like now, the more money you have, the more you can get away with.  cf. the movie "The Magic Christian" with Peter Sellers.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016406You didn't, my view just went to the bottom of the page.  I see you answered quite well, so I don't know why you were bitching about constraints that you easily followed.

Although, if you think "can't be in an active warzone" is an absurd stipulation, you're not exactly helping the "how cool medieval settings can be" side.

I was just raging because you made me work:D

edit

..and Bren commiserated so I chimed in.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016408Greenie, I honestly am having trouble following this whole thing.

I know, and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out why.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016408First, even in OD&D, PCs are never totally without restraint; there are references to taxation both before and after getting a stronghold.  The PCs paying taxes, that is.  Paying taxes means somebody who is not you is in charge.

Yeah a stronghold unless you completely carved it out of wilderness where no humans exist, means it's part of some land claimed by a country or something.  Looting the ancient fallen dwarf hold of Hammerfell in the Crystalmist Mountains 2 weeks travels past the frontier is a little different.  Here is where dialing up the history really changes things for the Points of Light type settings.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016408And what's wrong with being part of a hierarchy?  Who you are in the Middle Ages is defined by who protects you.  There are no "police" or even "city guards."

Nothing's wrong, bro, it's just different than being a saddletramp is all.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016408Further, there is almost no communication.  If you go to Paris dressed fairly well and claim to be the third son of Sir Thomas Grey of Warwickshire, and your manners and mannerisms fit in, NOBODY IS GOING TO QUESTION YOU, even if you're lying through your fucking teeth.  There is no such thing as an ID.

True, but you'll need to be able to play the part, and more importantly, spend the part, and you never know when the Vicomte Louis Etienne Chalon, who's related on his mother's side by marriage to Sir Grey and spent last summer in Warwickshire on holiday will out you. :D  But that's a feature, not a bug.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016408I will take other peoples' word that "MURDERHOBO WE BOW TO NO ONE" PCs in D&D are common and popular, but it frankly sounds like a shit way to play to me.

But, a Points of Light campaign with a niche that allows for a Professional Adventurer Class that exists outside the standard Feudal Hierarchy is really what we're talking about here, and not Murderhoboism, which is an exaggeration on your part.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016408Hell, you can even do a bog-standard dungeon crawl.  If there are rumors of buried treasure in that old Saxon hill fort ruin two miles from the village, people will go after it.  Even peasants had spare time.  And if you succeed, you will have money, and money equals mobility.  That's a big thing; just like now, the more money you have, the more you can get away with.  cf. the movie "The Magic Christian" with Peter Sellers.

True, but see above where I quiz Madprof about repercussions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016405You already did it, and it apparently wasn't hard, so why are you crying about the constraints, they obviously were not unfair.

We didn't say unfair. We said the constraint was one sided. It is.

QuoteOk, since the Bandits are people and not Orcs (or Pagan Barbarians, or Heretics), do the PCs have the legal right to dispense justice to the bandits, some of whom are statistically speaking probably runaway villeins, killing them if necessary?

Not being a historian of the Plantagenet legal system I don't know the legal answer. There is certainly a lot of precedent in actual historical societies for bandits being outlaws and legally outside the law or for laws allowing ordinary citizens to stop or apprehend thieves or bandits or even to hire thief takers to do that on their behalf.

QuoteIt's not an Ogre capturing women, but a Knight, so, what about the pillaging Knight?  Under what authority do they do the bidding of a Jew killing a Christian Knight and what consequences might they encounter?

If the knight is sufficiently unpopular locally maybe there are no negative consequences. But if there are negatives it's not like fantasy settings don't ever have consequences for killing monsters. The ogre might, after all, have a mother.

QuoteSince the Saxon was a Lord, that land was granted by someone to that Saxon, who granted the land and who has the current rights to that Hall?

Since the hall was burnt out possibly no one living has the rights or no one directly has the rights. An absentee landlord in Aquitaine may have to wait a long time to hear about the treasure finders. And it's not like some fantasy settings don't include taxation of the treasure finders. As just one example, in the Glorantha setting taxing adventurers is a source of income for the Lunar overlords of the town of Pavis.

This bog standard D&D you describe sounds sillier the more I learn about it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016411But, a Points of Light campaign with a niche that allows for a Professional Adventurer Class that exists outside the standard Feudal Hierarchy is really what we're talking about here, and not Murderhoboism, which is an exaggeration on your part.

I think you underestimate how much of medieval England and Europe was uninhabited.  Even in relatively tiny England, bandits disappeared into forests and were never found or captured.  And they could be goblins; medieval people believed in goblins.

The area around the Rhine was full of isolated castles whose lords made their money off tolls and banditry.

Really, there was a lot of empty area.

And honestly, once you have a little wealth you can become a "professional adventurer."  Once again, money makes things happen.  You keep handing your master -- lord, abbot, mayor, whatever -- bags of silver, you will be AMAZED at how many questions do not get asked.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016411I know, and I'm honestly having trouble figuring out why.

Most likely because I'd been reading about medieval warfare and history for a year or so BEFORE I started playing "Greyhawk."  Most of the original players in both Minneapolis and Lake Geneva were members of the Castle and Crusade Society.

This drastically changes the basic assumptions you walk through the door with.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016414I think you underestimate how much of medieval England and Europe was uninhabited.  Even in relatively tiny England, bandits disappeared into forests and were never found or captured.  And they could be goblins; medieval people believed in goblins.

Sure, they could also be Pagan Satanists or whatever, but as you dial up the history and dial up the subtlety of the fantasy, this becomes increasingly unlikely and these Venn circles drift farther apart.  Also it doesn't matter how much the believe in Goblins if they will never see, fight, kill, or loot one because Goblins do not exist.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016414The area around the Rhine was full of isolated castles whose lords made their money off tolls and banditry.

You mean robber knights and robber barons were a thing? ;)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016414Really, there was a lot of empty areas.

Yeah, but empty areas, generally speaking...empty, as in devoid of mounds of gold held by dragons and giants, or even long-dead Romans.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016414And honestly, once you have a little wealth you can become a "professional adventurer."  Once again, money makes things happen.  You keep handing your master -- lord, abbot, mayor, whatever -- bags of silver, you will be AMAZED at how many questions do not get asked.

Right, but you're not creating an Adventurer's Charter in Waterdeep and paying the license fee.  You have to negotiate the existing system of rights and obligations...unless you want to exist outside of it, in which case now you're the bandit in the cave, right?  Or buying passage to Paris and then doing the whole thing over again, moving on escaping obligations and disguising yourself as someone else in a new area.  This is essentially your Medieval-Authentic "Murderhobo", the wandering "adventurer" who is, arguably as much of a criminal/con-man as an adventurer.  Great fun with much hijinks and mayhem, but again, not really the same as your Forgotten Realms version.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016415This drastically changes the basic assumptions you walk through the door with.

This is why I'm confused, that is what I've been saying from the get go.

A campaign created by you, who has studied decades of Medieval History and Life, and practically zero time dealing with published D&D worlds like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc...

and

A campaign created by someone who has done the inverse...

Are going to have dramatically different campaign assumptions.  Hence there is a difference.  Hence being a historian, your job in this thread is to show all the cool stuff that can be done, not argue that there is no difference when you already know there is. :D

I think Krueger's response questions about the impact of social contexts on adventuring are excellent and valid. But I do not think that they have to constrain "authentic" play in a certain way.  They can, and that can be a feature, but as Bren's and Gronan's responses show, they don't have to.

I think the reason for some of the confusion is posted below:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016414I think you underestimate how much of medieval England and Europe was uninhabited.  Even in relatively tiny England, bandits disappeared into forests and were never found or captured.  And they could be goblins; medieval people believed in goblins.

The area around the Rhine was full of isolated castles whose lords made their money off tolls and banditry.

Really, there was a lot of empty area.

And honestly, once you have a little wealth you can become a "professional adventurer."  Once again, money makes things happen.  You keep handing your master -- lord, abbot, mayor, whatever -- bags of silver, you will be AMAZED at how many questions do not get asked.

The truth of this response is why Brady is wrong, and why my set up with commoners in a tavern is still authentic.

Even in the height of feudalism, in the heart of the Angevin empire, it's most civilized and classic example, medieval society was a fucked up chaotic mess.  Law in one valley is not likely the same as law in the next.  There was tons of wilderness and people were genuinely terrified of it (ever read folk tales?).  Serfs commonly just got up and walked off the farm.  People did travel, at their own peril, because there was loot, trade and opportunity.  Even monotheism was fucked up, and people believed in all kinds of gods and saints. Jesus was a minor deity who couldn't even make crops grow or cure impotence - there were some great saints with real magic powers for that.

And in Pundit's period of for lion and dragon, after the plague - forget about it.  The whole feudal order was falling to pieces, and chaos was compounded by chaos.

The point is, yes, those social restrictions can apply, and they can make for a different and authentic game, but there is enough room to break down those social restrictions and still have an authentic game.

Quote from: Bren;1016412We didn't say unfair. We said the constraint was one sided. It is.

As one-sided as pointing to a period of Civil War and near civilization collapse as an example of how civilization won't pose any constraints? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bren;1016412Not being a historian of the Plantagenet legal system I don't know the legal answer. There is certainly a lot of precedent in actual historical societies for bandits being outlaws and legally outside the law or for laws allowing ordinary citizens to stop or apprehend thieves or bandits or even to hire thief takers to do that on their behalf.

Thief-Takers...see there's an awesome historical profession.  How do you become one, and did England have them in Madprof's timeframe?

Quote from: Bren;1016412If the knight is sufficiently unpopular locally maybe there are no negative consequences. But if there are negatives it's not like fantasy settings don't ever have consequences for killing monsters. The ogre might, after all, have a mother.

Nice Beowulf shout-out, but not really the same as the person also being a member of society, and being a Knight, possibly worth a helluva lot more to a Lord (that might be your Lord) than some form of laborer vigilante, no matter how many peasants or non-Christians he deflowers.

Quote from: Bren;1016412Since the hall was burnt out possibly no one living has the rights or no one directly has the rights. An absentee landlord in Aquitaine may have to wait a long time to hear about the treasure finders.

Sure, maybe, but what if the Duke is a few days away?  England is not THAT big, even counting the lousy transportation/communication.

Quote from: Bren;1016412And it's not like some fantasy settings don't include taxation of the treasure finders. As just one example, in the Glorantha setting taxing adventurers is a source of income for the Lunar overlords of the town of Pavis.

Yeah, and you need an Adventurer's Charter and pay a fee to enter Waterdeep's Undermountain, but there's not such a town outside the monster-infested and treasure-laden ruins of Old Roman Londinium...unless you dial down the historical, and dial up the overtness of the fantasy, at which point those Venn Circles start closing, like I said.

Quote from: Bren;1016412This bog standard D&D you describe sounds sillier the more I learn about it.

If you truly are ignorant of TSR's published D&D setting supplements, adventures and novels and the campaigns they paint as "D&D", then what's silly is you claiming something you know about has no differences from something you don't know about.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016420This is why I'm confused, that is what I've been saying from the get go.

A campaign created by you, who has studied decades of Medieval History and Life, and practically zero time dealing with published D&D worlds like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc...

and

A campaign created by someone who has done the inverse...

Are going to have dramatically different campaign assumptions.  Hence there is a difference.  Hence being a historian, your job in this thread is to show all the cool stuff that can be done, not argue that there is no difference when you already know there is. :D

Well, no, that's not what I'm doing.  I'm not arguing, I'm puzzled.  What seems plain as day to me seems obscure to seemingly bright people.  But I've never read a Dragonlance novel either.  And I thought Drizzledick D'urinal was a stuipd character the first time I heard about it.

My actual point, which I know I stated plainly very early on, is that the actual middle ages have better maps, adventure hooks, and NPCs than any game world out there.  I don't recall actually saying your adventures would necessarily be tremendously different.  They could be, but they don't have to.

But in your previous message... "creating an Adventurer's Charter in Waterdeep and paying the license fee" ... is that honestly a thing?

Because... for MY money (one man's taste, not representative, mileage etc, close cover before striking, always store beer in a cool dark place, other disclaimers as needed) ... that sounds fucking retarded.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016420Are going to have dramatically different campaign assumptions.  Hence there is a difference.  Hence being a historian, your job in this thread is to show all the cool stuff that can be done, not argue that there is no difference when you already know there is. :D

I haven't been arguing that there is no difference and neither has Gronan.  I have been arguing that the middle ages was not what you and brady said it was.  You wanted the opinion of historians on how to play an authentic medieval game.  We had to start by dispelling some deeply ingrained myths and misconceptions: things like "to have adventure you have to be a lord or work for one," "there is no wilderness or otherness," or "feudalism was a lock-step system of rigid social order without flexibility" (I'm paraphrasing). There were many others.

The point is not to argue that D&D and a medieval authentic game are the same, that is assumed and understood that they are different, but that medieval authenticness is big enough, and not so restrictive as to eliminate D&D style play if that is what you want to do - and to provide some examples of "what could you do in an authentic medieval game" that break down some of those barriers and misconceptions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016426Thief-Takers...see there's an awesome historical profession.  How do you become one, and did England have them in Madprof's timeframe?

AH!  That question I can answer, Eager Young Space Cadet!

All free men were required to be part of the justice system.  If a crime was committed, one would raise the "hue and cry," and all free men who heard were legally required to participate in pursuit of the criminal.

If the criminal evaded the immediate pursuit, the bailiff or sheriff could send deputies after the criminal.  Most people would rather be about their business, so being one of those selected would not be difficult, if you did not have a reputation as a troublemaker.

Once you succeeded a time or two, the sheriff would seriously think about keeping you handy, and might recommend you to sheriffs in neighboring counties.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016041If you're now admitting that there was a significant number of people who had more colorful lives than pure servile drudgery, why do you keep wanting to present the argument that PCs in a Medieval-Authentic game would need to be the ones living in servile drudgery?

Because that's Laughing Boy's modus operandi; if he doesn't like something, he strives to show that it must be utterly horrible.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016421The point is, yes, those social restrictions can apply, and they can make for a different and authentic game, but there is enough room to break down those social restrictions and still have an authentic game.

Ok, but let's not try to shoot ourselves in the foot trying to find all the ways we can prove Brady wrong. :D

Sure, you can dial things to get to "D&D" in an Alt-World, but "Purely Historical" and "D&D Fantasy" are by definition, mutually exclusive.  Therefore as you approach one, you move away from the other, even though you can have some great campaigns when you're moving in the intersection.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016427Because... for MY money (one man's taste, not representative, mileage etc, close cover before striking, always store beer in a cool dark place, other disclaimers as needed) ... that sounds fucking retarded.

Well, it's a guy who's a retired adventurer who bought the building that had an old well that is the best known entrance into Undermountain, and charges an entry fee and takes a tax from stuff you bring out.  That sounds like a great retirement for the Glorious General. :D

As far as the Adventuring Charter goes, the idea is, an Adventuring Party is an enterprise, so like a Ship's Charter, or a Mercenary Company's license/contract, the Charter identifies the adventurers who are permitted to delve into all the monster-infested ancient ruins that litter the North and bring out loads of cash and magic.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016428deeply ingrained myths and misconceptions: things like "to have adventure you have to be a lord or work for one," "there is no wilderness or otherness," or "feudalism was a lock-step system of rigid social order without flexibility" (I'm paraphrasing). There were many others.

Yeah but let's look at those...

"to have adventure you have to have to be a lord or work for one" is a stereotype, but like all stereotypes there is a kernel of truth in there.  The truth is more like "generally speaking (not 100% absolutely), to have the Wild West type of freedom typical of D&D Fantasy, you need to be a Lord or work for one, be Clergy or work for them, be independently wealthy and bribe/pay Lords or the Clergy, be a criminal, or be in a specific place/location where society collapses and Chaos is on the rise."

"there is no wilderness or otherness"  - compared with D&D settings, there isn't any.  Wilderness not possibly infested with monsters doesn't count as "D&D Wilderness", which yeah, always has monsters in it.  And again, believing non-existent monsters exist is not the same thing at all.  You have to be dialing up the Fantasy here to have a Trollshaws/Drakwald Forest/Vesve Forest, etc.

"feudalism was a lock-step system of rigid social order without flexibility" - How about considering we're talking about Feudalism in the context of "as opposed to Democracy or a Republic or Constitutional Monarchy" it didn't have "a lot of flexibility"? :D

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016428The point is not to argue that D&D and a medieval authentic game are the same, that is assumed and understood that they are different, but that medieval authenticness is big enough, and not so restrictive as to eliminate D&D style play if that is what you want to do - and to provide some examples of "what could you do in an authentic medieval game" that break down some of those barriers and misconceptions.

Yes, but not all "D&D style" play is going to be supported if you also want to support "Medieval Authentic".  There are no dungeons/ancient cities/cavern complexes filled with monsters/undead and masterless loot.  The adventuring, even if you add in Fantasy, is going to be somewhat more mundane.  There's no way around that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016437Yes, but not all "D&D style" play is going to be supported if you also want to support "Medieval Authentic".  There are no dungeons/ancient cities/cavern complexes filled with monsters/undead and masterless loot.  The adventuring, even if you add in Fantasy, is going to be somewhat more mundane.  There's no way around that.

At the risk of prolonging this for another zillion pages, I disagree.  Firstly, I disagree with the assertion that there can't be monsters.  Two days' travel into the Scots borders or the Welsh borders, you could find bloody anything.  And "two days' travel" in an area you don't know with no roads and rough terrain could be 30 miles.

And why AREN'T there dungeons/etc?  There are buried burial barrows all over England (cf. Beowulf once again).  Why couldn't it be entry to something deeper?

And if Beowulf could find an ancient treasure, why can't the PCs?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016438At the risk of prolonging this for another zillion pages, I disagree.  Firstly, I disagree with the assertion that there can't be monsters.  Two days' travel into the Scots borders or the Welsh borders, you could find bloody anything.  And "two days' travel" in an area you don't know with no roads and rough terrain could be 30 miles.

And why AREN'T there dungeons/etc?  There are buried burial barrows all over England (cf. Beowulf once again).  Why couldn't it be entry to something deeper?

And if Beowulf could find an ancient treasure, why can't the PCs?

Right, but as I keep saying, since all the stuff you are talking about is entirely mythical/legendary, stories do not equal anyone actually having done it.  Since no one actually did any of these things it's a stretch to say fighting Grendel, Grendel's Dam and the Dragon is "Medieval Authentic".  As "Medieval Authentic" moves further away from Medieval History, then D&D stuff becomes more available, as I've said like a dozen times now.

Now if you count "Medieval Authentic" as "every single legend and belief of the medieval mind is REAL", well then you got leprechauns with pots of gold, and satanic sorcerers with towers full of treasure granted by the Devil, and all kinds of stuff that brings you a helluva lot closer to "D&D Fantasy", and probably is close to the D&D you've been running since I was in grade school.

Once "Here be Monsters...and their Treasure." is true, then more of the full range of D&D play opens up.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016441Right, but as I keep saying, since all the stuff you are talking about is entirely mythical/legendary, stories do not equal anyone actually having done it.  Since no one actually did any of these things it's a stretch to say fighting Grendel, Grendel's Dam and the Dragon is "Medieval Authentic".  As "Medieval Authentic" moves further away from Medieval History, then D&D stuff becomes more available, as I've said like a dozen times now.

...And as I have said a dozen times now, I disagree. Fantasy is just exaggerated re-invented history.  It's not mutually exclusive, it's just amped up. I am happy have gentelman's agreement on this if you are as I doubt if you or I can conclusively prove the objective truth of the argument.

Quote"Now if you count "Medieval Authentic" as "every single legend and belief of the medieval mind is REAL", well then you got leprechauns with pots of gold, and satanic sorcerers with towers full of treasure granted by the Devil, and all kinds of stuff that brings you a helluva lot closer to "D&D Fantasy", and probably is close to the D&D you've been running since I was in grade school.

Once "Here be Monsters...and their Treasure." is true, then the full range of D&D play opens up."

Well, to play an authentic game, you have to keep the door to this stuff open.  If you start by telling players "this is a historical game, there are no magic or monsters" you've already blown it by throwing in that anachronism.

* lies down with an icepack on his head *

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016448* lies down with an icepack on his head *

I've seen a lot less productive discussions around here.  But when you are done with that icepack, I'd like to borrow it.

C'mon guys, again it isn't that hard...
If the Prince of Wales is riding a horse with a Dragon on his shield...Medieval-Authentic-Historical.
If the Prince of Wales is riding to do battle with a Dragon...Medieval-Authentic-Fantasy.
If the Prince of Wales is riding the Dragon, we might be leaving Medieval-Authentic behind, doncha think?

Well, I personally never said anything about leaving behind all fantasy elements.

I feel like I'm in a parallel dimension and the words I'm hearing are almost but not quite correct and vice versa.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016453C'mon guys, again it isn't that hard...
If the Prince of Wales is riding a horse with a Dragon on his shield...Medieval-Authentic-Historical.
If the Prince of Wales is riding to do battle with a Dragon...Medieval-Authentic-Fantasy.
If the Prince of Wales is riding the Dragon, we might be leaving Medieval-Authentic behind, doncha think?

I can't say I'm familiar with the terminology as its been used by other people. And I have to admit, I am finding this a terribly confusing conversation. But when I talk about gaming a historical period in an authentic way, to me that could mean anything from gritty with no fantasy elements to a plethora of fantasy elements. The authentic part would be in the other details of the setting (how closely it cleaves to real institutions from the time, how much things like the way the economy worked and the way law and order worked are factored in, if fantasy elements are there how closely they match the myths and legends of the time, how the cultural and social details are handled---and you don't necessarily have to have all of it, you could just focus on certain things, while opening up others to be more flexible). If the fantasy elements are entirely in keeping with the beliefs of the people at the time, I'd say its quite authentic. I feel like people are just talking about different things and using different language for them. There is definitely room for realistic history or straight history in gaming too (i.e. either purely playing something that is all history with no fantastic elements to it). But I think the more realistic you get, the more you are playing something that feels like a period drama, rather than a period action or adventure movie. I think as long as one is consistently expanding one's knowledge of a period and trying to incorporate that material into the setting, then you are moving in the direction of authentic history. It has honestly been several years since I've boned up on medieval Europe, so I don't know how I might handle that now. But I do remember there being considerable variation in feudalism from place to place (and a lot of debate and discussion over how prevalent and deeply rooted it was). I am sure there is also room for different schools of thought on the subject.

Krueger, what kind of play are you looking for exactly here; do have adventures more like 1000 Bushels of Rye in mind, or another module or setting book in mind?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016457Krueger, what kind of play are you looking for exactly here; do have adventures more like 1000 Bushels of Rye in mind, or another module or setting book in mind?

Well, Brendan, anything Harn would pretty much fit I think, and the most detailed examples we've seen so far have all been things you could slot straight into Harn.

Gronan, I still can't believe this is hard...

Fighting Pit Fiends and Balrogs, Temple of Elemental Evil and Hellgate Keep, Flying into battle on Dragons dodging Hill Giant Artillery, mega dungeons created by Mad Wizards/Gods...typical D&D world, right?  Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Golarion all have those things.

Do those things sound very "Medieval Authentic" to you?  If not, then you should have no trouble agreeing with the concept that your typical D&D world and a Medieval Authentic world are not going to have 100% the same kind of adventures.  There will be differences, and that will change your default assumptions and what you do.

You cannot possibly use the term "Medieval Authentic" and do everything you can do on any of the published D&D worlds.  Once you do, it is no longer "Medieval Authentic".

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016459Fighting Pit Fiends and Balrogs, Temple of Elemental Evil and Hellgate Keep, Flying into battle on Dragons dodging Hill Giant Artillery, mega dungeons created by Mad Wizards/Gods...typical D&D world, right?  Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Golarion all have those things.

And there we go.  Most of those things are from much later ages of D&D.  Frankly, it's not the Greyhawk I know.

Except Balrogs, and what are they but fire demons?  Or a pit fiend, which is just another variety of demon.  Fighting demons fits.  No, not every day in the middle of Westminster Abbey, but come on.

"Published D&D worlds."  There is the disconnect.  Never played one, never read one.  "D&D" to me is unchanged from 1980.

And, frankly, most of those things DON'T SOUND FUN TO ME.  I had no idea that D&D had become "turned up to 11 all the time."  To quote Sir Samuel Vimes... "arseholes to the lot of them, says I."

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016426As one-sided as pointing to a period of Civil War and near civilization collapse as an example of how civilization won't pose any constraints? :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want. From here it seems that repeatedly people pick a period they are interested in and you toss it out. For reasons. Your constraints seem contrived to try to rule out anything that conflicts with your premise.

QuoteNice Beowulf shout-out, but not really the same as the person also being a member of society, and being a Knight, possibly worth a helluva lot more to a Lord (that might be your Lord) than some form of laborer vigilante, no matter how many peasants or non-Christians he deflowers.

I didn't say it was the same. I said similar. If your criteria is you want the exact same things in a historical setting as you have in an extremely a-historical setting that criteria is kind of silly.

QuoteSure, maybe, but what if the Duke is a few days away?  England is not THAT big, even counting the lousy transportation/communication.

Obviously if the Duke is nearby then the situation is different than if the Duke is far away. And England is pretty big when the rate of travel is often 15 miles per day in good weather on a dry road in a part of the country with which you are already familiar.

QuoteYeah, and you need an Adventurer's Charter and pay a fee to enter Waterdeep's Undermountain, but there's not such a town outside the monster-infested and treasure-laden ruins of Old Roman Londinium...unless you dial down the historical, and dial up the overtness of the fantasy, at which point those Venn Circles start closing, like I said.

I can only guess what the first part of your paragraph means based on it being different than the second part. But a monster-infested, treasure-laden ruin right next to the capital city of the country didn't sound too plausible to me in high school. The plausibility of the premise hasn't increased with the years.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016437"there is no wilderness or otherness"  - compared with D&D settings, there isn't any.  Wilderness not possibly infested with monsters doesn't count as "D&D Wilderness", which yeah, always has monsters in it.  And again, believing non-existent monsters exist is not the same thing at all.  You have to be dialing up the Fantasy here to have a Trollshaws/Drakwald Forest/Vesve Forest, etc.

In a historical setting the real monsters are often other people who are every bit as awful as any D&D monster I've ever seen described.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016459Fighting Pit Fiends and Balrogs, Temple of Elemental Evil and Hellgate Keep, Flying into battle on Dragons dodging Hill Giant Artillery, mega dungeons created by Mad Wizards/Gods...typical D&D world, right?  Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Golarion all have those things.

Do those things sound very "Medieval Authentic" to you?  If not, then you should have no trouble agreeing with the concept that your typical D&D world and a Medieval Authentic world are not going to have 100% the same kind of adventures.  There will be differences, and that will change your default assumptions and what you do.

Those of us that played D&D before TSR published all that shit probably have a different idea of what our "typical D&D world" is going to look like. That seems to be a major disconnect in this thread.

For Bren and Gronan, what IS a "typical D&D world"?

Granted I think CRKrueger is going way to the end of the high fantasy scale for his examples, since even in FR most adventures tend to be along the lines of "fight some orcs, clear out some goblins" and only culminate in a big demon fight or something at the very end of the module. But it's true the SETTING is just exploding with magical shit left and right.

I don't really get why this thread is focused on how to make a play a cliched game of D&D in a medieval setting.

Surely the starting point for any setting is, what kind of awesome shit does this setup and environment make possible?

If a GM told me that he was running a game in 13th century England with all the possibilities and richness that setting made possible, the last thing I'd be wanting or expecting to do is dig around in a barrow looking for some kind of ancient loot.

Rather than seeing the feudal hierarchies and the like of the setting as constraints- woudn't it be better to see them as opportunities?

Quote from: TJS;1016485I don't really get why this thread is focused on how to make a play a cliched game of D&D in a medieval setting.

Surely the starting point for any setting is, what kind of awesome shit does this setup and environment make possible?

If a GM told me that he was running a game in 13th century England with all the possibilities and richness that setting made possible, the last thing I'd be wanting or expecting to do is dig around in a barrow looking for some kind of ancient loot.

Rather than seeing the feudal hierarchies and the like of the setting as constraints- woudn't it be better to see them as opportunities?

According to CRKrueger, he is the one saying that it should be different, and all of the history buffs are saying it would be "the exact same D&D" as the normal standard one, which he is trying to make them admit is false by showing how they can't fit together. Or something.

I don't think they think that, it's clear now that there is a difference and perhaps the only disconnect is what "standard D&D" is. That and it being OK to be different.

Thogh CRKrueger also has a point that the most history-based the system/game/setting is, the more personal knowledge the DM needs, and in this case the history buffs can help out by imparting the rest of us with the info we need to actually make such a game happen. Otherwise, we gotta rely on WotC's Forgotten Realms and so forth.

FR came late. Like what, 1983-4?

I can move the goalposts as well, and say that's not a valid baseline for "standard" D&D, whatever that may be.

The fallacies are strong with this one.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016481For Bren and Gronan, what IS a "typical D&D world"?

Based on my experience way back in the mid to late 1970s there wasn't a typical D&D world. The group of people I associated with always had multiple DMs. Different DMs created different settings based on what they enjoyed or saw as reasonable for a setting. So you expected some variety between settings. Sometimes a lot of variety. You could read about what some other people were doing in fanzines like Glenn Blacow's Wild Hunt or Alarums & Excursions. (I think A&E was Lee Gold, but my memory isn't what it was 20 years ago.) And of course we all stole ideas from each other, but that didn't result in any sort of uniformity.

Quote from: saskganesh;1016489FR came late. Like what, 1983-4?

The boxed set came out in 1987. I'm not even a proper old timer like Gronan, and I had been playing for years before it came out.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016481For Bren and Gronan, what IS a "typical D&D world"?

I had a lot of Medieval Authentic in my original D&D worlds just about from the very beginning. There was also lots of Fantasy in the first couple of D&D Worlds that I created as well. So it was kind of well mixed... TSR didn't have a fantasy world setting for the first four years I ran games, so I had to make my own campaign settings... adding what I liked, where I liked, and I began in the Spring of 1977.

My first gaming world was heavily influenced by The Lord of the Rings as well as the The Hobbit. The First Campaign Map I made featured a series of mountain chains running roughly from Southeast to Northwest, with numerous "shire" like valleys and vales high up in the mountains. Traveling over the mountain passes  to the West led to a great plain with many neutral and neutral-evil human towns, and then an ocean. Traveling South one reached the inland sea, and there were pirates there, and quasi-romans and Quasi Egyptians, all sailing the tropical warm shallow seas with war galleys of various sorts. Tech was ancients with stone, bronze and iron weapons (not even medieval). Only the humans on the plains to the west had steel weapons to trade.

To the East was lush hills mixed with Jungles.

The Men lived in the West. The Hobbits, and Dwarves and Gnomes lived up in the vales and mountain valleys. The Elves lived in the Forests and Jungles to the East. Amazon tribes lived in the Jungles to the East as well, and they took men and made them slaves.

The evil races of demi-humans lived high up in the mountains, and in the wilderness far away (at least two to three days travel) from any of the civilized settlements.

Everyone used magic, or had magic users, Wizards, Sorcerers, Enchanters, Summoners, and Witches. The Orcs and Hobgoblins were served by Human Evil High Priests, and they had their own clerics and strange religions as well (not out of Tolkien)...

Players could setup their own Kingdoms, Strongholds, or Palaces, and were encouraged to do so. When they quit playing, or their character died, I as the GM, took over their settlement, and would add it into my campaign, sometimes playing their characters as npcs, other times replacing the former characters with new NPCs.

This was a typical early D&D World, ...created originally in 1977, and it was a lot of fun to play in... And I really enjoyed running game sessions for my friends, and they were greatly entertained!

Greyhawk came out in like, 1980, right about the same time as DMG, We had already been playing for four years already, before we saw the first TSR created game world.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016481For Bren and Gronan, what IS a "typical D&D world"?

Where a Staff of Wizardry was the prize for finding the secret treasure cache on the bottom level of Greyhawk Castle (it was the only thing in there).  Where playing 3 to 4 times a week for 2 years would get you to 14th level.  Where a +3 sword was a big fucking deal for a 9th level fighter.

Quote from: TJS;1016485I don't really get why this thread is focused on how to make a play a cliched game of D&D in a medieval setting.

Oh, it's NOT.  At least, not by me.

Quote from: TJS;1016485Surely the starting point for any setting is, what kind of awesome shit does this setup and environment make possible?

That's where I was hoping the historians would rock the house, we've been getting there...slowly.

Quote from: TJS;1016485If a GM told me that he was running a game in 13th century England with all the possibilities and richness that setting made possible, the last thing I'd be wanting or expecting to do is dig around in a barrow looking for some kind of ancient loot.

Agreed, although I think we got very caught up on people proving that you could do that if you wanted to.

Quote from: TJS;1016485Rather than seeing the feudal hierarchies and the like of the setting as constraints- woudn't it be better to see them as opportunities?

As Gronan has said, feature, not bug.  I agree, and really, thought the historians in this thread would just say "sure" and start expounding.

To be honest, I didn't expect so many people to not have a clue what TSR/WotC has been doing for 40 years, and that published D&D left 'Tolkienesque' behind somewhere during the Reagan Administration.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016497Where a Staff of Wizardry was the prize for finding the secret treasure cache on the bottom level of Greyhawk Castle (it was the only thing in there).  Where playing 3 to 4 times a week for 2 years would get you to 14th level.  Where a +3 sword was a big fucking deal for a 9th level fighter.

Now remember there's people reading this thread who started with 3x/PF or god forbid, 4th.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1016487According to CRKrueger, he is the one saying that it should be different, and all of the history buffs are saying it would be "the exact same D&D" as the normal standard one, which he is trying to make them admit is false by showing how they can't fit together. Or something.

I don't think they think that, it's clear now that there is a difference and perhaps the only disconnect is what "standard D&D" is. That and it being OK to be different.

Thogh CRKrueger also has a point that the most history-based the system/game/setting is, the more personal knowledge the DM needs, and in this case the history buffs can help out by imparting the rest of us with the info we need to actually make such a game happen. Otherwise, we gotta rely on WotC's Forgotten Realms and so forth.

This is a a rather brilliant interpretation of this thread and its value.... err something

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016498To be honest, I didn't expect so many people to not have a clue what TSR/WotC has been doing for 40 years, and that published D&D left 'Tolkienesque' behind somewhere during the Reagan Administration.

I have stated many times that I never "converted" to AD&D 1st edition and that "white box" is new school to me.  I wasn't kidding.

Other people, I can't speak for.

Quote from: Bren;1016466In a historical setting the real monsters are often other people who are every bit as awful as any D&D monster I've ever seen described.

Yeah, in any decent game, novel or movie. From a literary stand point, a D&D ogre is just an overgrown muscle bound mook.

QuoteThose of us that played D&D before TSR published all that shit probably have a different idea of what our "typical D&D world" is going to look like. That seems to be a major disconnect in this thread.

God, am I that old?

True, when I started roleplaying there was very little published RPG material and a shit ton of history and literature. My real into to RPGs was the Iliad, and rather think it has served me well.

Anyway, I am sorry to inflict my age upon people.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016513Yeah, in any decent game, novel or movie. From a literary stand point, a D&D ogre is just an overgrown muscle bound mook.

Do your decent games have muscle-bound mooks Chaotic/Evil who eat humans and everything else?  Just wondering. :D

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016513God, am I that old?

True, when I started roleplaying there was very little published RPG material and a shit ton of history and literature. My real into to RPGs was the Iliad, and rather think it has served me well.

Anyway, I am sorry to inflict my age upon people.

It's not so much your age as your extreme aggro once I poked what apparently is your personal academic pet peeve and then Brady kicked it in the teeth. :D

You have not the greatest idea what modern D&D settings are like.  Ok, then...just maybe ease off a bit on the absolute certainly that you can do everything they can do in a Medieval setting...since you don't know everything they do?  Make sense?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016498Oh, it's NOT.  At least, not by me.

Or by me.

QuoteThat's where I was hoping the historians would rock the house, we've been getting there...slowly.

I'm old I guess. have patience young learners. I'm trying. What was the question?

QuoteTo be honest, I didn't expect so many people to not have a clue what TSR/WotC has been doing for 40 years, and that published D&D left 'Tolkienesque' behind somewhere during the Reagan Administration.

Yes, my brain shut off and I quit learning after Reagan.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016514Do your decent games have muscle-bound mooks Chaotic/Evil who eat humans and everything else?  Just wondering. :D

What is a decent game? But I like REH, so a lot of my RPGs do.

QuoteIt's not so much your age as your extreme aggro once I poked what apparently is your personal academic pet peeve and then Brady kicked it in the teeth. :D

You have not the greatest idea what modern D&D settings are like.  Ok, then...just maybe ease off a bit on the absolute certainly that you can do everything they can do in a Medieval setting...since you don't know everything they do?  Make sense?

Yup.

Though that's not nearly my academic pet peeve. And I don't have much absolute certainty.

I would like to know about their awesome new knowledge though.  And I'm not being sarcastic. What am I missing?

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016515Yes, my brain shut off and I quit learning after Reagan.

That one is more Gronan and Bren I think, and only about published D&D.

I still think it's extremely odd that someone who doesn't know the most basic things about the primary D&D setting for the last 30+ years would wade in swinging claiming that there aren't going to be serious disconnects with Medieval-like settings.

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016516What is a decent game? But I like REH, so a lot of my RPGs do.



Yup.

Though that's not nearly my academic pet peeve. And I don't have much absolute certainty.

I would like to know about their awesome new knowledge though.  And I'm not being sarcastic. What am I missing?

To the kind of campaigns you and I like, not much, to be honest,  I toned even the original Realms Greybox way down when I ran it.  Let's be clear though, I never said it was awesome, just DIFFERENT from Medieval-Authentic, hence the thread.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016459Well, Brendan, anything Harn would pretty much fit I think, and the most detailed examples we've seen so far have all been things you could slot straight into Harn.
.

I like the Harn material. I tend to call stuff like that historical realism (but I think we are just quibbling over terms). I get what you are describing though. Your talking more about stuff that avoids table top adventure conceits, and focuses more on plausible but playable, everyday threats? So you might encounter some kind of underground complex at some point, but it isn't going to be a vast sprawling dungeon, it might be like the the very simple structure in 100 Bushels (at least I think it was that module, my HARN stuff is is in the other room). But it was a nice example of something you might actually encounter on a historical dig (or at the very least, it felt like a real world building), and they still managed to make the mundane challenges around it interesting and fun. And the whole adventure premise was rooted in manorial life. So more emphasis on realistic and mundane features of the setting, is what I think of as historical realism. But that is a big challenge to game. I think Harn does it really well (not getting into any questions of its accuracy, but of its approach). And there is a lot of material for medieval gaming at the village level. But any time you take that concept somewhere else, its a very research heavy proposition. Because the kind of historical details you need to run things at the ground level like that, are usually the types of historical details that are the most time consuming to amass (and your often not getting the exact answer you need from the sources). I've spent weeks and weeks sometimes trying to figure out details like that.

I guess for me when I hear "authentic" I'm thinking 'authentic to the culture and time' which would be different than 'historical'.  So a game that tries to capture the authentic folklore of the middle ages, sounds like it could be called medieval authentic. It may have fantasy elements, but they are all fantasy elements people at the time believed in. One that places strong emphasis on daily life in the feudal structure, would be historical realism to me. At least, that is the language I've been using. You can encounter that difference in a modern game too. There is a big difference between a session that is trying to very realistically simulate a police investigation, versus something that plays more like Lethal Weapon or Seven.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016518To the kind of campaigns you and I like, not much, to be honest,  I toned even the original Realms Greybox way down when I ran it.  Let's be clear though, I never said it was awesome, just DIFFERENT from Medieval-Authentic, hence the thread.

This thread is honestly the first time I've really encountered "Medieval-Authentic" outside people talking about things like period costume. Since this is the crux of the debate here; is this a term with longstanding meaning in the RPG community, or has it just cropped up and people are fighting over what it means (sincerely asking here, not trying to cloud the discussion). I am sure it has probably been around, and I've just not really picked up on it. I am pretty slow to pick up on terminology.

Quote from: CRKrueger;10144264) There is no frontier.  There is no Untamed Land to be conquered anywhere in Europe.  If you are carving new habitable land out of raw wilderness, then you meet the 800lb gorilla in the room:

5) Your adversaries are all human.  

Ravenswing's points above and the ones I added are going to fundamentally change the nature of a campaign that will alter not only what the PCs do, but how they live.

More on this later...

Couldn't the PCs be monster hunters, either for hire (a la the Witcher) or as part of a feudal obligation of protection? For example, the Church Militant gets a report about a revenant who's killing children in Bumbleshire. An experienced team investigates.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016543I like the Harn material. I tend to call stuff like that historical realism (but I think we are just quibbling over terms). I get what you are describing though. Your talking more about stuff that avoids table top adventure conceits, and focuses more on plausible but playable, everyday threats? So you might encounter some kind of underground complex at some point, but it isn't going to be a vast sprawling dungeon, it might be like the the very simple structure in 100 Bushels (at least I think it was that module, my HARN stuff is is in the other room). But it was a nice example of something you might actually encounter on a historical dig (or at the very least, it felt like a real world building), and they still managed to make the mundane challenges around it interesting and fun. And the whole adventure premise was rooted in manorial life. So more emphasis on realistic and mundane features of the setting, is what I think of as historical realism. But that is a big challenge to game. I think Harn does it really well (not getting into any questions of its accuracy, but of its approach). And there is a lot of material for medieval gaming at the village level. But any time you take that concept somewhere else, its a very research heavy proposition. Because the kind of historical details you need to run things at the ground level like that, are usually the types of historical details that are the most time consuming to amass (and your often not getting the exact answer you need from the sources). I've spent weeks and weeks sometimes trying to figure out details like that.

I guess for me when I hear "authentic" I'm thinking 'authentic to the culture and time' which would be different than 'historical'.  So a game that tries to capture the authentic folklore of the middle ages, sounds like it could be called medieval authentic. It may have fantasy elements, but they are all fantasy elements people at the time believed in. One that places strong emphasis on daily life in the feudal structure, would be historical realism to me. At least, that is the language I've been using. You can encounter that difference in a modern game too. There is a big difference between a session that is trying to very realistically simulate a police investigation, versus something that plays more like Lethal Weapon or Seven.

I think we're on the same page, pretty much.  

For example, if you look in the Goetia, you'll see a demon King Paimon.  If a PC or NPC is summoning it, making a pact with it, getting knowledge from it, etc, it's fantastical, but seems pretty Medieval-Authentic.

However, if a sorcerer in Edinburgh summons Paimon and can't control it, and Paimon opens a gate to Hell and invades Scotland with his 200 Legions of Spirits (a Hellgate Keep-like scenario) and conquers everything North of Hadrian's Wall and Druids through mass sacrifice turn the whole Hadrian's Wall into a Ghost Fence to protect England, then we have something perfectly at home in a D&D setting, but I think we're leaving the term "Medieval-Authentic" behind at that point.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1016545This thread is honestly the first time I've really encountered "Medieval-Authentic" outside people talking about things like period costume. Since this is the crux of the debate here; is this a term with longstanding meaning in the RPG community, or has it just cropped up and people are fighting over what it means (sincerely asking here, not trying to cloud the discussion). I am sure it has probably been around, and I've just not really picked up on it. I am pretty slow to pick up on terminology.

I don't know that I've heard that specific term outside of Pundit's usage.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016585I think we're on the same page, pretty much.  

For example, if you look in the Goetia, you'll see a demon King Paimon.  If a PC or NPC is summoning it, making a pact with it, getting knowledge from it, etc, it's fantastical, but seems pretty Medieval-Authentic.

However, if a sorcerer in Edinburgh summons Paimon and can't control it, and Paimon opens a gate to Hell and invades Scotland with his 200 Legions of Spirits (a Hellgate Keep-like scenario) and conquers everything North of Hadrian's Wall and Druids through mass sacrifice turn the whole Hadrian's Wall into a Ghost Fence to protect England, then we have something perfectly at home in a D&D setting, but I think we're leaving the term "Medieval-Authentic" behind at that point.

I think we are, except we are using slightly different language (which I think is what people are butting heads over in this thread). I would differentiate between medieval authentic and realistic medieval. I think the latter is much more in the HARN realm of things because it is more grounded around mundane details; but with authentic I that term is a lot more open to different meanings. Again, that isn't getting into debates over how widespread and uniform feudalism was (honestly I am not boned up enough in recent years to weigh in on that intelligently). To me authentic could really mean so much though. For example, with a lot of the Chinese stuff I've been doing, there is a big difference between Authentic historical song Dynasty and authentic wuxia genre song dynasty. You could have two totally different campaigns, one that feels like a Wuxia film or book, versus something that is more gritty and set against the mundane realities of the time. And then you could also have something that is authentically modeled after the cultural assumptions and beliefs that were prevalent during the Song Dynasty. The wuxia authentic song could even have anachronisms and still be authentic because it is authentic to the genre. Again though, I am not terribly hung up on these terms. I am just trying to wrap my head around what is being discussed here.

QuoteI don't know that I've heard that specific term outside of Pundit's usage.

Okay. Then if he coined it to describe Lion and Dragon, I guess he gets to set the parameters of the term (at least as it pertains to the book). I was under the impression we were talking about a pre-existing word in gaming or trying to hash out a concept. In a way, I don't think there is really a conflict here. I think you guys are just talking about two different concepts but using the same term to describe it. You want something more like HARN, but he is talking about a slightly different idea in order to help convey the concept behind L&S.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016517I still think it's extremely odd that someone who doesn't know the most basic things about the primary D&D setting for the last 30+ years would wade in swinging claiming that there aren't going to be serious disconnects with Medieval-like settings.

I'm not sure if you are speaking of Gronan or me here.  

If it's me, I admitted to missing some of modern D&D, but that is not the same as "doesn't know the most basic things about the primary D&D setting for the last 30+ years." I am somewhat ignorant of it, blissfully I think, but I was pretty on top of it right through 3.5.

Also, I didn't "wade in swinging."  You called out the historians in the crowd and asked "what would PCs do?" I tried to answer, first by correcting historical myths that were taking people in the wrong direction, and then by providing examples.  I got a little frustrated when you argued with, or ignored, the honest answers that I was giving to the question you asked specifically of people like me, in order to pursue an agenda of the relationship between historical and fantasy settings. I am guilty of overindulging because it was, if nothing else, an interesting conversation.

Clearly, I still feel like I am a bit on the defensive here or I wouldn't be explaining myself.

QuoteLet's be clear though, I never said it was awesome, just DIFFERENT from Medieval-Authentic, hence the thread.

I never said they were the same, and I understand the simple argument that you are making, I just have a different perspective on the nature of the relationship between history and fantasy. I shared it, and that obviously was not a good idea.  It took the focus away from the more concrete and interesting matter at hand and caused a ruckus.

It's all good though, the thread has given me inspiration to perhaps try the GPC again.  I've never quite gotten it off the ground. It's on my bucket list.  Some friends and I got drunk and made characters last night.  It hasn't been a complete waste.

QuoteTo the kind of campaigns you and I like, not much, to be honest, I toned even the original Realms Greybox way down when I ran it.

I did the same with the old grey box realms. In fact, I turned it into a hybrid RPG/minis wargame based on wrg rules and Tony Bath's examples.

One thing I haven't mentioned in this thread is that I don't think I ever have, or ever would, run a 100% pure historical RPG that is completely void of fantasy elements.  I've done plenty of 95/5% mixes though.  A splash of the unreal is good at the table.  

Cheers

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016601I'm not sure if you are speaking of Gronan or me here.  

Can't be me, all I did was claim that the historical Middle Ages had better maps, NPCs, and plot hooks.  And I still maintain that; history is far more complex than anything anybody can dream up.  History doesn't have to worry about verisimilitude.

Quote from: Kingdaddy;1016553Couldn't the PCs be monster hunters, either for hire (a la the Witcher) or as part of a feudal obligation of protection? For example, the Church Militant gets a report about a revenant who's killing children in Bumbleshire. An experienced team investigates.

Absolutely! Knock yourself out!

...and welcome to the RPGsite

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016605Can't be me, all I did was claim that the historical Middle Ages had better maps, NPCs, and plot hooks.  And I still maintain that; history is far more complex than anything anybody can dream up.  History doesn't have to worry about verisimilitude.

And I'll add that it really doesn't matter WHAT game world you're talking about.  There is just SO MUCH history, no game world can ever come close.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016497Where a Staff of Wizardry was the prize for finding the secret treasure cache on the bottom level of Greyhawk Castle (it was the only thing in there).  Where playing 3 to 4 times a week for 2 years would get you to 14th level.  Where a +3 sword was a big fucking deal for a 9th level fighter.

That's not a 'world' that's a single location.  I'm honestly confused.  Is this the extent of a world to a lot of the older gamers?  (Honest question.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016641That's not a 'world' that's a single location.  I'm honestly confused.  Is this the extent of a world to a lot of the older gamers?  (Honest question.)

It more demonstrates the power level.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016646It more demonstrates the power level.

The degree to which magic was rare and/or unique, vs. everything was fairly readily available vs. all magic items are well understood and commoditized is a big difference in setting assumptions. I don't think I ever saw a Staff of Wizardry in anybody's campaign though I did see one or two wands of fireballs and lightning bolts. I did have a 7th level fighter who found a flaming sword that was +3 vs. something or other (trolls maybe). But the sword also required wearing a matching pair of silver mail gauntlets that prevented the flames from scorching the guy who was wielding the blade.

The medieval-authentic party can HUNT PAGANS!

"You meet in a forest and decide to adventure together."

[video=youtube;wMUnLkwAnbU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMUnLkwAnbU[/youtube]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016605Can't be me, all I did was claim that the historical Middle Ages had better maps, NPCs, and plot hooks.  And I still maintain that; history is far more complex than anything anybody can dream up.  History doesn't have to worry about verisimilitude.

Agreed except for the better maps. Having worked with historical maps in general they frustratingly incomplete. Along with historical surveys like the Domesday tome and later surveys.

In general you need to understand how things works to fill in the missing specifics of any particular source.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016646It more demonstrates the power level.

I'm sorry, but it honestly tells me nothing.  I know nothing about Castle Greyhawk.  I have no idea what the level range that players should be to get through that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016705I'm sorry, but it honestly tells me nothing.  I know nothing about Castle Greyhawk.  I have no idea what the level range that players should be to get through that.

If you don't get it you really need to look at this site (https://www.gcflearnfree.org/topics/reading/). Gronan explicitly told you that he adventured there from first to fourteen level playing over four years 3 to 4 times a week. Hence Castle Greyhawk is for 1st to 14th level characters at least.  Does that spell it out in fine enough detail?

Quote from: Madprofessor;1016601One thing I haven't mentioned in this thread is that I don't think I ever have, or ever would, run a 100% pure historical RPG that is completely void of fantasy elements.  I've done plenty of 95/5% mixes though.  A splash of the unreal is good at the table.  

That short movie "Pagan" I just posted is a good example of the 95+5 you mention. So is this one. The "predator" could as well be a highish-level Strength 18 Fighter/Thief with very high Move Silently and Hide in Shadows.

[video=youtube;YRD8jAk274I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD8jAk274I[/youtube]

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016705I'm sorry, but it honestly tells me nothing.  I know nothing about Castle Greyhawk.  I have no idea what the level range that players should be to get through that.

It's the contrast in expectations.

If Rob Kuntz plays 2 to 3 times a week, every week, for 2 years, and hits 14th level, that tells you that advancement is much slower than "play once a week for a year and hit 20th level."  If one PC out of a dozen having a +3 sword is a big deal, vs PCs having multiple magic weapons by 7th or 8th level, that tells you that magic weapons are much rarer.  Etc.

Come to think of it, I ran a Castles and Crusades Robin Hood inspired game a few years back that wasI guess somewhat "Medieval Authentic".

It wasn't actually set in Europe but in "Albion" a not-England, and was inspired loosely by the Old Robin of Sherwood TV series.  The king, Arthur the Lion Heart, had gone on crusade and left his uncaring brother Mordred to rule in his place. The PCs were outlaws living in the forest and fighting against the Evil Sheriff and his Demon worshipping Sorcerer.  

PC races were restricted to humans, half-elves, which means they had faerie ancestry, Dwarves (Also Faery ancestry just of a different sort) and halflings (because why not?).  We also ended up with a Half-Orc because one of the players basically wanted to play Little-John as a "Half-Giant" and I thought, why not more Faerie blood.

Clerics were either good or evil, either they worshipped the sun god and the church of a thousand martyrs or they were evil which meant they were basically satanists.  Actual cleric pc class members were rare and considered miracle workers on their way to likely saint hood.  Hedge wizards and witches, wise women and pagan priests were druids and usually very low level ones; illusionists used faery magic.  Actual wizards were members of the Order of Hermes - nicked from Ars Magica, and had to follow strict rules or risk enforcement against them by their order (if they interfered overtly in politics or sought political power for themselves they were in trouble.)

The game was explicitly low level, it ended with the PCs at level 8 and the highest level NPC was the Sheriff's sorcerer (a level 11 evil cleric - the sheriff himself was level 9)

It wasn't hard to run, but that was largely because the players didn't really need to know much history - everyone has a general idea of the sort of things that happen in a Robin Hood story and the game was limited to a restricted area - the forests and surrounds.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016735It's the contrast in expectations.

If Rob Kuntz plays 2 to 3 times a week, every week, for 2 years, and hits 14th level, that tells you that advancement is much slower than "play once a week for a year and hit 20th level."  If one PC out of a dozen having a +3 sword is a big deal, vs PCs having multiple magic weapons by 7th or 8th level, that tells you that magic weapons are much rarer.  Etc.

I ran a 5e game for close to two years now with a weekly game and my players have just hit level 10.  Thing is, that's not a 'setting', expectations happen whenever people go do something.  Go to an action movie, expecation is to be presented with a visual spectacle with possibly explosions, a chase scene or two weapon play/martial arts.  Same thing applies to an RPG.  With just about every version of D&D the expectations are vaguely fantasy, with swords and sorcery.  But that's not a setting.  So I'm not entirely sure you understand the question.

(Also, I understand what you meant by Castle Greyhawk 'expectations' now, it's a 14 level megadungeon effectively.  But that's not a setting, it can be part of one.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016806(Also, I understand what you meant by Castle Greyhawk 'expectations' now, it's a 14 level megadungeon effectively.  But that's not a setting, it can be part of one.)

Right.  Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Again, expectations; a Staff of Wizardry, by itself, was considered The Grand Prize of the Whole Damn Dungeon, Wow!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1016065Simply making the point that one of the differences is that you have to focus on certain historical hotspots (or create them in an alt setting) to get the standard level of danger and chaos of a standard D&D setting.  For example, pick your most stable, civilized nation in Greyhawk or the Realms.  Are there orcs in the forests and giants in the hills or the like?  Probably, yeah.

Most fantasy settings are not stable either. They don't usually take place in a golden age. They are by definition troubled.

Quote from: Voros;1016110Thanks, I've heard good think about the Crouzet and have added it to my wishlist, I'll also check out The Child Eaters which I hadn't seen yet.

There will be more L&D adventures coming in the RPGPundit Presents series.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016177No, it's more like you have to handpick the specific historical period to find more than two years when shit like that WASN'T happening.

That's just the ones that occurred to me instantly.

True. There was hardly a time in Medieval Europe when war or social unrest wasn't happening somewhere. Usual several somewheres at once.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1016182There is another reason that I think the whole question of "history" can be a scarlet Clupea.

I play fighters.  I always play fighters.  In the 45 years since I was first introduced to "Greyhawk," I've played four magic users that I can remember, and one cleric.  I may have played a thief, I don't remember.

I play fighters.  It's what I like to play.  And somebody who can use a sword will always find somebody who want to pay for it being used.  And once you get some positive reputation and some money, you can always do the knight-errant thing if you want.  Or wander around looking for people who will pay for your services.  Or something else.

Yes. The real difference with many fantasy games would be that while your fighter would statistically be the same, in a Medieval-Authentic setting the whole 'style' of your fighter could be very different if you were a peasant versus the son of a knightly family.


As opposed to standard D&D where the difference often is (maybe) that one would get more gp than the other.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1016195Then you might enjoy L+D more than most, as its fighters are some of the fightiest fighters in any D+D variant. The combat system is not particularly complex (though it does have a nicely nuanced parry rule). But the fighter class just ends up much tougher than any other class. A couple of 2-3 level fighters would have no qualms about bossing around a dozen or more 0-level characters or members of other classes (I'm including barbarians, er 'Scotsmen', as fighters here). That probably sounds about right. A couple of experienced knights should have nothing to worry about from a dozen lightly armored goofs.

Well, yes and know. I think if you play it a little more you might change your opinion on that. Especially if you're using critical rules.

MOST of the time, a couple of level 3-5 knights will wipe the floor with a dozen 0-level goofs in padded jack, but one of the things of the system is that there's always a chance that one of those goofs will kill them (especially if you're using the optional critical table).

Quote from: Bren;1016392So the historical setting must include a constraint that the PCs cannot leave civilization,

Not in L&D.  In fact, there's a whole appendix dedicated to helping set up adventuring in the borderlands.

Quote from: Kingdaddy;1016553Couldn't the PCs be monster hunters, either for hire (a la the Witcher) or as part of a feudal obligation of protection? For example, the Church Militant gets a report about a revenant who's killing children in Bumbleshire. An experienced team investigates.

Yes. In fact, the Cults of Chaos sourcebook (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/187942/Dark-Albion-Cults-of-Chaos), which is essentially a supplement for Lion & Dragon even though it was published earlier, is all about being inquisitors, with the most detailed system we could come up with for generating sects of witches, heretics and cultists that have a strong Medieval-Authentic feel to them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016914Yes. In fact, the Cults of Chaos sourcebook (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/187942/Dark-Albion-Cults-of-Chaos), which is essentially a supplement for Lion & Dragon even though it was published earlier, is all about being inquisitors, with the most detailed system we could come up with for generating sects of witches, heretics and cultists that have a strong Medieval-Authentic feel to them.

I can confirm that the CoT source book is an outstanding source of adventure hooks. You could play for years just using 'leads' provided by all the tables that define various sorts of cults, their members, goals, resources, etc.

I certainly don't think I ever made a better random generator than Cults of Chaos, and maybe never will be able to equal it. You can literally run a whole campaign of it (as long as the campaign is mostly about investigating evil sects/cults/witches etc).
Plus it's where I first laid out just how Elves work in Albion.

I think the best measure of a game book is how much of it is actively used at the table. Cults of Chaos ranks high in this regard.

The Cults of Chaos sourcebook is great and could be used for lots of things beyond just Dark Albion.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1017262The Cults of Chaos sourcebook is great and could be used for lots of things beyond just Dark Albion.

Yes, that was a design goal.

Apparently I am not playing proper D&D since my games don't have a professional adventurer class engaging in consequence free murder hoboism. I guess my Wilderlands and Nentir Vale games are acrually historical medieval in disguise. :D

Edit: This discussion though does have me wanting to run Yggsburgh again, this time with Cults of Chaos.

Quote from: S'mon;1017361Apparently I am not playing proper D&D since my games don't have a professional adventurer class engaging in consequence free murder hoboism. I guess my Wilderlands and Nentir Vale games are acrually historical medieval in disguise. :D

Edit: This discussion though does have me wanting to run Yggsburgh again, this time with Cults of Chaos.

Cults of Chaos might be just what Yggsburgh could use! I really like that volume, particularly the map and location descriptions for the region surrounding the town. But the city itself is a bit too squeaky clean for my tastes - a twisted and demented chaos cult that reaches into the top ranks of the city's leadership could be just what it needs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016912Not in L&D.  In fact, there's a whole appendix dedicated to helping set up adventuring in the borderlands.

To be clear, I don't agree with this as a criterion for any setting fantasy or otherwise. The criterion was set by Kruger.

Quote from: S'mon;1017361Apparently I am not playing proper D&D since my games don't have a professional adventurer class engaging in consequence free murder hoboism. I guess my Wilderlands and Nentir Vale games are acrually historical medieval in disguise. :D

You should be ashamed. Thirty lashes with a wet noodle.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1013789The historians on this site have a little bit of a bad habit of telling everybody how there's tons of adventure in Medieval-Authentic campaigns, but it's not going to be D&D standard - without telling us exactly what it is going to be.  Having played/run Harn I got my head around it eventually, but there might be people who don't really get the difference.

So tell us, what are PCs going to do?  Being hired mercenaries/troubleshooters for some Patron is easy, that's available in any time, any place.  Same with Vikings, we got that one.

Give us some examples from history of PCs.  Obviously Lion and Dragon/Dark Albion era will be a focus for Pundit, but what about Reconquista-Era Spain, or the Hundred Years War, Gronan?

Dazzle us with cool PC concepts straight out of history.  What's our party look like?  What do we do over the course of a campaign?  HOW is this different?

Back to the OP ...

It is a difficult question, in many ways.

Many of the things that adventurers do in a non-D&D campaign can easily be met with "Well, that can happen in D&D", so let's look at things that make up typical D&Ding (Apologies, I haven't played D&D for a long time, so my experiences may well be out of date):

• Dungeoneering - A lot of D&D involves going into an underground dungeon in search of treasure
• Wilderness - many D&D scenarios involve exploring an unmapped wilderness
• Black and White - Alignment means that NPCs react in predictable ways, this means that the world can be often divided up into good and bad, so a Good party has no problem killing orcs, for example
• Class Focussed - D&D Parties focus on those things that advance their PCs through their class
• Experience - Traditionally, D&D was about getting treasure, specifically gold pieces, and killing things
• Party makeup - A group of people drawn from a few classes

So, at a very basic level, anything that doesn't do that is not D&D-like.

• A campaign that revolves around political intrigue is not very D&Dish, as advancement is not through killing things and gaining treasure, but rather through jockeying for political postion, espionage and character/physical assassination.
• A campaign that involves religious duty is not very D&Dish, as D&D has traditionally had a very vanilla form of religion, AD&D had clerics where everyone had the same spells, althogh 3r changed this and I haven't a clue what later editions have done with religion. Something like pantheonic Romans and Celts meeting and and engaging in a clash of religions is not a D&Dish campaign. The struggle between Catholics and Protestants in the 16th and 17th Century is not a D&Dish campaign.
• Campaigns that revolve around  different groups of PCs, drawn from different professions isn't really D&Dish, even though replacing Profession with Class sounds like D&D. Here, a blacksmith, alchemist, scholar and thief searching for some long-lost alchemical scrolls is not a very D&Dish campaign. Templars searching for lost relics sounds like D&D Dungeoneering but can be done very differently.

Now, I am naturally biased, as my background was RQ first and then D&D, I stopped playing D&D when I moved away from home, but kept on playing RQ, as it felt as though it had a different style of adventuring. So, my examples tend to fall into the "RQ does it this way" camp.

Quote from: S'mon;1017361Edit: This discussion though does have me wanting to run Yggsburgh again, this time with Cults of Chaos.

Good plan!