[quote=@ArenaSnow]
<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

Honestly, I prefer it to gunpowder. I haven't really seen enough "early" roleplays, but that's my taste.

And I find that history can be bent easier as nations were much less set in stone. If I take a nation of that period, I can pretty easily excuse my actions by a probable "what if' scenario.
[/quote]What's the problem with medieval era guns? I never understood why people are so afraid of featuring them. Plate armor was introduced to deal with guns, among others. Chain mails did the job well but they were becoming too expensive since each link is created individually. plate armors were both cheaper and lighter than chainmails while distributing the weight more evenly. Guns were only becoming a problem around the 15-16th century and even after that musket-proof armors were a thing. Wearing armors never truly went out of fashion albeit there's a sharp drop around the turn of the 18th century. In spite of that there are documents of soldiers buying armor even during the Civil War, albeit the metallurgy of these were of varying quality so sometimes they were little more than deadweight. Also armor-wearing soldiers were branded cowards in both armies. Those were some interesting times.:rolleyes

So yeah, blaming guns on the disappearance of "chivalric times" is partially a misinformation. Granted, the idea of muskets being teribly inaccurate is similarly a myth. Though lack of quality control in the modern sense did make these less reliable than expected.

Anyways, back to the point. You fear guns yet using 11th century would pretty much erase anything which we popularly assign with "medieval times". Plate armor, noble houses, chivalry, longswords, crossbows (of most forms), certain siege engines, castles and perhaps even more.
I can't see that being good. Granted, if this is fantasy then things like existence of magic, dwarven craftsmanship and similar factors can perhaps shape technology in a way which you can't fully stuff in either century.