So Wizards of the Coast is doing a lot with the so-called races; namely, they no longer use race, which they find problematic, offering species as a safer alternative. Whatever. I've always maintained there's no wrong way to do fantasy (with the exception of Gor), and that extends to WotC. I strongly believe it nudges D&D towards an Iron Age Star Trek I accept on pinciple but remain ambivalent to; but there's absolutely nothing wrong with exploring a universe where this is so. Even the puerile Gor I so despise has its place...
But medieval fare is inherently anachronistic. Now I agree we shouldn't subject our players to racism and/or sexism or certain (to-remain-nameless) violations despite their otherwise historical context. Even so, there's real value to conveying the mindset of a more primitive society. Heliocentric (or even flat) worlds are well within bounds; and viewing non-humans as seperate races seems more in line with pre-scientific times. Erroneous perhaps, but being wrong about stuff is essential to medievalism and part of its charm.
And what constitutes medieval anyway? Chainmail? Swords? It only exists in historical context; more specifically, our historical context. That said, medieval is civilization fumbling ever-so gradually out of its dark ages towards an inevitable renaissance (they're not the middle ages for nothing). It lies between two extremes, and that's part of its charm. It clings to the past while embracing an emerging, if flawed, new thinking. A faulty science of wonky syllogisms (humors, angels on pinheads) straddling both sides of the coin...
Which leads to the gist of today's offering. Modern D&D, with its artificers and scientific pretensions, may no longer be that fantastic medieval wargame. These days, it's more like a post-renaissance, pre-modern game (with decidedly modern social values) bordering on steampunk. Still, the odd throwback exists. The world is big, and there's always barbarians to crash the modern party. Now no system survives the GM, who reserves final veto authority; but we have to be honest about the default setting of D&D nowadays.
Now I initially thought species couldn't interbreed, a seemingly glaring oversight; but a kind reader corrected me. This calls for an update. Humanoid races could certainly interbreed, producing fertile offspring depending on how we define them. But given what we've learned about genetics, the whole concept of species might bear changing, which further argues against its use as a panacea. Another chum suggested folk as a suitable alternative, archaic for sure, and in keeping with the medieval roots of a fantastic medieval wargame.
" I'm pedantic; sorry, but a species, by definition, doesn't breed outside itself, much less produce fertile offspring"
ReplyDeleteAs even more pedantic person, I have to say that this is wrong. Wolves and coyotes are considered different species, but can produce fertile offspring. So are polar and brown bears. Also, Neanderthals are considered separate species of humans, but they had fertile offspring with Homo sapiens. As far as I understand, in modern biology the term "species" is quite problematic and reproductive isolation is only one criteria of a species and not mandatory.
You're correct, which argues further against its use in a game of fantasy. Thanks for your timely insights - and good gaming!
DeleteArguing for verisimilitude in a fantasy game is kind of a fools errand anyhow. D&D has always been a mashup of a dozen different eras, (Bronze swords existing alongside plate armor, etc) with magic thrown in which screws up the whole timeline anyhow. Back in the 80s I remember reading articles about how dragons invalidate most medieval defenses and how "castles" in a world with dragons would look very different from what we imagine them as.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally, Gor (which I've only read the first, mostly harlmess book of) handles that problem fairly ingeniously, with thin, strong wires strung between the towers of their cities, providing a nasty deterrent to any flying attackers on dragonback.
Absolutely! Perhaps safer to say D&D was capped at the medievel period, while nowadays it's closer to the Renaissance. I also have to agree about Gor. The first book had potential, but Norman's misogyny spoiled all that...
DeleteWhether or not the blog poster was correct about some finer points of biology distracts from the central idea: Wosbro's D&D is no longer mideval and now more post renaissance bordering on steampunk. This is something that should be discussed and examined.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Yeah, the game has definitely shifted away from its medieval roots, although to what ultimate end, who can say? It bears consideration...
Delete