History "HF" vs. "S&S" gaming: the underlying reason of conflict and change in D&D

[Zulgyan]

This article is a repost from my blog: Zeta Orionis

"High Fantasy" vs. "Sword & Sorcery" gaming: the underlying reason of conflict and change in D&D

OPEN AND PUBLIC FIRST DRAFT

When I was in the process of discovering old-school, there were a couple of forum discussions that had a key role in the deconstruction of my gaming paradigms, and the slow building of a new way of approaching D&D that made me comprehend and enjoy it better. I got them bookmarked and still go back to them from time to time, when I need to clarify some things for myself.

Many of this discussions predate the old-school renaissance. There was no Labyrinth Lord, no Sword&Wizardry, no Fight On!. The OD&D Discussion forum did not exist (I believe it had an important role in the renaissance), the blog-sphere was very small, OSRIC was just beginning, and so many things we have today where just not there. I believe that this discussions where quite relevant for the understanding of the game to many, but I'll never really know - they where at least very important for me.

Here they are. They are somewhat long. If you want to read them, prepare yourself for a very thought provoking experience. There is a lot you can agree and disagree on, but they are really fascinating discussions.

Swords & Sensibility: the evolution of the tone of D&D.

Inspirations for D&D setting past and present.

Swords & Sorcery in a Nutshell

Picaro and the "Story" of D&D

What follows in this blog post will be easier to understand if you have read the discussions linked:

You might be thinking "hey, but this discussions are more about swords & sorcery than old-school itself!". Yes, indeed they are. But what happened to me is that:

Once I understood sword & sorcery as applied to gaming, I began to understand so many things old-school D&D is so often criticized for.

A non exhaustive list:
1) Higher degree of player skill involved in survival.
2) Higher degree of luck involved in survival.
3) Save or die effects (a big one).
4) Random encounters.
5) Lack of automatically balanced challenges (another big one).
6) Powerful, impartial, unforgiving DMs.
7) Lack of "story", as something mostly pre-planned to play itself.
8) Lack of "adventure paths" or "sagas".
9) Possibility of playing any alignment, at any time and moment.
10) Lack of pre-planned rewards everyone should automatically obtain.

All of which boil down to: Lack of player entitlement.

In "High Fantasy" gaming, as opposed to" Sword & Sorcery" gaming, the PCs, the good guys, are meant to win on the sole reason they are the good-guys, and good should always triumph. If it were to be defeated, it's defeat should be meaningful, it should be a contribution to the ultimate end: the victory over evil. The game starts with the premise that good will finally triumph over evil, maybe after much suffering and loss, but that is the main theme guiding and controlling all what is happening and should happen.

In sword & sorcery gaming, nothing of that is true. Success is not based upon your goodness, higher morals, or desire of the well being of the world. In sword & sorcery gaming success is based solely on luck, access to resources and sheer ability. Even if your character is good, or the protagonist, that gives him no entitlement whatsoever to success, or to "special treatment".

Without really noticing it, many people don't want to play sword & sorcery gaming. What they want, is to play a story about good winning the epic battle against evil. This is what you see many people striving for. It's not that explicit or evident, but it's there. But the true is that, if you want to play High Fantasy with D&D, specially old-school D&D, the game WILL FAIL YOU.

"How can my character die to the poison of randomly rolled spider?".

"I needed to fudge the dice in order to save the story".

"Every hero should have the appropriate magic items".

"By the moment they reach level 12, I plan the mayor confrontation with their nemesis - so I need them to survive at least until that point, it's the story".

"A character should never die to the random encounter or to mere mooks, his death should be fighting something significant".

"I don't want the DM to ruin my character, he is supposed to mean something, he is the hero".

The conflict between this two genres has been, in my humble opinion, a main factor driving change thought the history of D&D. It's certainly not the only one, and it might be it's most unperceived, but I really believe it plays an underlying mayor role. In many flaming edition wars and D&D hate over the net, what's really in discussion is what type of game people want to have: a game of High Fantasy vs. a game of Sword & Sorcery. I think many people don't realize this. Or if they do, they don't put it out so explicitly.

The main reason many people don't like the older versions of the D&D game, it's because its a game of sword & sorcery as opposed to a game of high fantasy. But many people don't realize this is the main reason for their dislike. As they think D&D should satisfy their High Fantasy pretensions, and it fails at it, they think the game is badly designed.

In the older versions of D&D, your alignment, or your position as a player/protagonists: "Gave you no entitlement, or right to anything. No outside support to achieve your objectives. The only one you could rely on was yourself.

And in that way, the spirit of sword & sorcery was brilliantly and elegantly captured in D&D.

High Fantasy Troupes in D&D:
D&D included from it's beginning troupes that are more common to High Fantasy literature than to Sword & Sorcery literature: elves, dwarfs, hobbits, some of the evil humanoids, unicorns, good dragons, etc.

Sometimes it is believed that playing D&D in the spirit of sword & sorcery means removing the demi-humans out of D&D "because they don't appear in the sword & sorcery novels". I think that is not correct. Sword & Sorcery is a concept HIGHER than the novels in which it concretes itself. What's important is not if the novel has elves, hobbits, or none of those. If it has clerics or not. What's important is the underlying worldview and moral system.

High Fantasy literature is based on a Christian worldview. According to Christianity, good will finally triumph over evil. God intervenes in history to carry out his plan of salvation. Even more: to many Christian denominations, evil has already been defeated by Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Sword & Sorcery literature is based on an Atheist worldview. So there is no god to take care of you. No god to be the parameter and judge of morality. No higher force of good that will finally triumph over evil. Humanity is alone. So it's all about power and survival.

So... what makes your D&D a game of High Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery, is not if you play with elves, dwarfs, hobbits or clerics. It's about the underlying worldview and moral system of the game setting. The high fantasy troupes are then just cosmetic. What's important is the spirit on which the game is played. They rest are just superficial elements.

Indeed, you could play d20 Conan in a High Fantasy spirit. The Howardian troupes is not what makes the game sword & sorcery. It's the spirit in which the game is played.

The few High Fantasy troupes that made their way into D&D, might have been the main source of confusion as to which genre the game was trying to emulate. People expected the game to work like a High Fantasy novel, and it utterly fails at it.

The game is not badly designed. It is simply not designed for High Fantasy gaming.

The game is designed for sword & sorcery.

History of the D&D game under this analytical approach:
From OD&D to AD&D 1E the game is self-consciously a sword & sorcery game. The cosmetic inclusion of some High Fantasy troupes might be the source of confusion to some, but the game presents itself as sword and sorcery.

2E wants to be High Fantasy, but it does not have the mechanical support to achieve it. There are nearly no elements of player entitlement. They game fails to achieve it's premise. This is the main reason for the spawning of some many alternatives to D&D, that want to achieve High Fantasy with the mechanical support D&D does not have. Those games focus on "getting the story right".

3E wants to go back to it's sword & sorcery roots. But the inclusion of some elements brings some confusion. The majority of fans, many without noticing it, want a game about High Fantasy. THIS is the major underlying source of conflict in all edition wars. High Fantasy elements start creeping into the game, either explicitly in the books, or by the generalized idea of how it is supposed to be played.

4E has more High Fantasy game elements ingrained into the system. But it still has some of the incoherency of 2E and 3E.

Old-school and New-school. Concepts that don't work to understand the differences in the game:
Looking into the future. Could we abandon the use of old-school and new-school as the way of separating the different ways of playing D&D?

Sword & Sorcery D&D vs. High Fantasy D&D would be, IMO, a much better model to understand the differences on how the game is supposed to work.

Ascending armour class, unified XP, etc. are matters that are really secondary in the discussion. What's most important is the SPIRIT in which the game is played

Rules light vs. rules heavy, particular approaches to certain aspects of the rules (AC vs. AAC), are different discussions , and the differentiation should be made.

Old-school and new-school are a mess of ideas and different concepts unnecessarily put together. We need to separate and re categorize the issues and subjects of discussion. Old-school vs. new-school has proven not to work.

[Zulgyan]

Some comments I posted on my blog that can help to clarify some points:

As a disclaimer: I am a Christian. I just find an Atheistic world more fun for gaming.

Gods in D&D are just super-powerful begins. But they fight each other to control the world, not to redeem it. And they are not the responsible for the existence of the universe.

This is the sword&sorcery world view.

Ok, maybe not atheistic. If there is a God in sword&sorcery, it is unlike the Christian God. The sword&sorcery god has left the world alone.

Should S&S gaming be rules light?

Not necessarily. You could have a very complicated and rules heavy system to determine the hit of an arrow. One that could take into account wind direction and speed, quality of the arrow, very detailed armour rules, etc.

The weight of the rule is not what's key. What's key is that the system gives you no "special treatment" or "plot privileges" for being the good guy, or the protagonist

S&S is not necessarily gritty/realistic - that's a concretion in most of it's novels. But it can be a high powered, supers game. What's important is the underlying worldview, moral system, and means of success (skill vs. being the good guy).

I think S&S, IMO, does not work well with a scripted/story path approach. The DM intervening in the story is like the Christian God intervening in history, and that is antithetical with the atheist S&S world view in which history is completely random or the mere story of power struggles between men.

I think there is no need to apply any of the styles to the extreme. You can go towards one of the two directions, with some small elements of the other. But both in the total extreme are near unplayable

[The Thayan Menace]

Good stuff, my friend.

However, your use of religious references (despite their accuracy) will probably get this thread locked.

-Samir (TM)

[Aus_Snow]

I totally disagree.

There are few fantasy RPGs that are less well-suited to S&S roleplaying than D&D. Yes, I mean any edition. Every edition, even.

edit --- . . . without house-ruling them half to death, cutting off 2/3 of available levels, or other such extremely drastic measures.


Anyway, D&D is certainly very much a high fantasy RPG. Sure, slightly more nowadays (i.e., 4e) than some time ago, but still. This is not a condemnation - it's what D&D does well! This should be celebrated, not denied or whatever.

[JeffB]

Nice post and generally I agree with you. The last 2 versions of the game are influenced by very different source material from outside the game (i.e. movies, novels, TV, animation, etc).

Peronsally I'm all for the S&S and when I was running 4E, my games leaned back to the S&S side of things- I've never believed in "player entitlement to winning". I mad thngs tough, I made them rely on player skill just as much as character skill, and they got wiped out a couple of times. Oh well- thats life in a harsh D&D world- grab a new character sheet

[Matthew L. Martin]

This sounds about right--and I say that as someone whose sympathies are overwhelmingly on the 'high fantasy' side, and who has determined that whatever the 'old school' movement is, it is in flavor and thematics generally the opposite of what I want.

It's no wonder that my favorite iteration of d20 to date is Star Wars Saga Edition--Star Wars is pretty clearly high fantasy with space opera trappings, and SWSE is a very good adaptation of d20 to that feel.

[Matthew L. Martin]

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow

I totally disagree.

There are few fantasy RPGs that are less well-suited to S&S roleplaying than D&D. Yes, I mean any edition. Every edition, even.

edit --- . . . without house-ruling them half to death, cutting off 2/3 of available levels, or other such extremely drastic measures.


Anyway, D&D is certainly very much a high fantasy RPG. Sure, slightly more nowadays (i.e., 4e) than some time ago, but still. This is not a condemnation - it's what D&D does well! This should be celebrated, not denied or whatever.

Hmm...trappings and 'power level' wise, maybe, but the thematics of the game, especially in 'old school', are very much "sword & sorcery"--Man alone in an uncaring or hostile universe, dependent only on his own strength or cunning, left to carve out his own place and determine meaning for him. There is no good or evil, there is only power and those who lack it, to quote (perhaps inaccurately) a character in a recent work of fantasy.

Is D&D existentialist?

[Starfox]

I'd agree, except in S&S books, the hero is a loner (possibly a duo) that never ever dies. The world can end, but the hero survives. It is in HF that people actually die - it might be meaningful, heroic sacrifices that play a role in the sagas, but main characters do die.

That's at odds with your view.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Matthew L. Martin

Man alone in an uncaring or hostile universe, dependent only on his own strength or cunning, left to carve out his own place and determine meaning for him. There is no good or evil, there is only power and those who lack it

Why then the Cleric (replete with numerous Christian-y effects, among other things. . . like ANTI-EVIL spells galore), as one of only *three* PC classes in the original game? So inappropriate for S&S, it's quite hilarious, reading the OP in that light.

Why are there some distinctly non-S&S (and somewhat religion-based / religion-influenced) sources listed in that reading material list so often mentioned? Or are only some of those 'relevant' all of a sudden as well. . .?

It gets 'worse' by far from there, but that's a start, I guess.

[Mallus]

Some observations...

Equating a difference in play goals/styles with a sense of 'entitlement' isn't helpful. In fact, it's a insult (not that I'm insulted, mind you, just sayin').

If you want a game that objectively measures player skill, may I suggest a nice game of chess?

Old-school D&D requires that players be able to think like the DM. This often gets labeled 'player skill'. It's certainly a valuable thing to have, but it's nowhere near an objective talent, such as being good at chess.

Which is to say old-school D&D is only as challenging and demanding as the person running it makes it (intentionally or not). Because most of the task-resolution system is the DM's own judgment --which isn't a bad thing at all.

My experience is that D&D is weird mixture of high fantasy and swords and sorcery (as you've been using the terms), regardless of edition.

For example, lots of people I know used 1e for high fantasy campaigns, and my group's 4e game has a big, deliberate swords and sorcery feel.

[Doug McCrae]

I think you might be on to something here but your terminology is wrong. Old school D&D doesn't particularly resemble classic sword & sorcery fiction. I don't remember Conan dying from a poison spider bite in the first story, then being reincarnated as a dryad. Also you're very wrong about the death rate in 3e, the rules don't assume all encounters will be balanced, that's a misinterpretation, and death is quite likely even when they are. Though 3e and 4e both assume the PCs will be good guys, they don't assume they will win, or die a heroic death at the 'right time'.

d20 D&D PCs are mechanically complex, unlike earlier editions. Assumptions in rpgs have changed since the 70s, PCs are more interesting now both mechanically and in terms of back story and personality. So if they die it's a big problem, unlike in old school play. Unfortunately under the 3e rules they die quite frequently. 4e makes death less likely. But it doesn't guarantee success, so even the 4e rules don't support the telling of a story where the good guys win.

You are right to make a distinction between 'karmic gaming universes' where the good guys are certain to win, and non-karmic. But you can't really tie non-karmic to S&S, as the protagonists win in S&S just as often as the protagonists in HF, and they're still much more sympathetic than the bad guys, just not as altruistic as the HF heroes. And 3e and 4e aren't karmic by the rules, that requires GM fudging in every edition. In fact it was probably most strongly encouraged in 2e.

[Raven Crowking]

Hi.

Just wanted to say, "Interesting discussion".

AFAICT, though, the S&S genre doesn't come from an athiest POV. There are "gods" in Conan, for instance, and Solomon Kane certainly is Christian. The gods in Newhon, like those in Greyhawk, take an active role in the world.

What S&S projects is a world in which there is not an overarching plan, sometimes because there are no gods, sometimes because there are disinterested gods, and sometimes because the gods themselves are not all-powerful, and squabble among themselves.

IMHO, anyway.

For this reason, I have to side with Aus_Snow. If you are going to define S&S as primarily atheistic in viewpoint, then I am going to have to agree that D&D isn't a very good vehicle for S&S gaming.

If, OTOH, you define S&S as I did above, then D&D is fantastic.


RC

[catsclaw227]

I haven't read through the essays you linked to, so take my comments with that in mind.

It sounds here to me like you are redefining what Sword & Sorcery and High Fatasy are to help support your claims. Personally, High Fantasy has little to do with Christianity, any more than Sword and Sorcery has to do with Atheism.

Conan, Elric, Fafhrd & Grey Mouser... each are icons of Sword & Sorcery literature (though Elric COULD be considered High Fantasy, as there seems to be more fantastical than grim & gritty.) But their stories had just as many elements that made sense in 4e as elements that would only be found in OD&D games. And each were rife with Gods. Good ones, Evil Ones and even indifferent ones. Ones that stayed out of the affairs of mortals and ones that were actively involved.

In my opinion, your non-exhaustive list are things that differentiate the gaming movements aren't any more important than the following are differentiations:

• Unified Mechanics vs. unrelated and inconsistent subsystems
• PCs follow/don't follow same rules as NPCs or other "DM" elements
• Structured real-world style Ecologies vs. Orcs bunking next to Shriekers next to lurkers and mimics in interconnecting stone 20x20 rooms.
• "I can only have an 16 in that stat?" vs "Awesome, a 14!"
• APs vs Sandbox vs Delves with Minis
• Narrativist vs Simulationist vs Gamist

And yet, NONE of these have anything to do wth High Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery by any definition of the terms that are commonly known by gamers.

We played high fantasy with AD&D back in 1978 and it worked just fine. And I have run a Swords & Sorcery style game with d20 and OGL games.

I guess, I just don't agree that we need to redefine these terms in an effort to (once again) create another divide between what is fun for two different groups.

Some like "old-school" style rulesets (and I really dislike that term) and some like the OGL edition or the current edition.

I guess what I am asking is...... What is the point of the exercise?

Between a recent Grognardia article and this one, I am starting to feel like there are people that are bent on driving a wedge deeper between disagreeing factions of our hobby.

I ask.... "To what end?"

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Equating a difference in play goals/styles with a sense of 'entitlement' isn't helpful. In fact, it's a insult (not that I'm insulted, mind you, just sayin').

I think 'sense of entitlement' may or may not imply an insult, but it would be safer to say players have certain expectations regarding monster power levels and magic item frequency.

Which they have had in every edition. Modules had a recommended level. Monsters were more powerful on deeper dungeon levels. Gary counseled against both Monty Haul-ism and Killer DMing in the 1e DMG. d20 just codified it more.

[Krensky]

Well, first off the word you want is trope, not troupe. A troupe is a theater group, a trope is a literary theme, convention, or cliche.

As for your literary analysis, I think you got it wrong.

The protagonists of S&S stories won because they were the protagonists. S&S stories follow many of the same tropes as action movies. The protagonists may not be good guys but the antagonists are worse, violence, seducing beautiful women, and daring do solves all problems. Conan, Elric, Hawkmoon, et all win because they're the protagonists. Winning may be pyrrhic or just surviving, but they still enjoy massive amounts of plot protection.

The nature of morality in High Fantasy is correct, and there is a good bit of Judeo-Christian symbolism in the two earliest recognised works (OK, a lot), but the premise in the genre of good defeating evil is not inherently Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic. While the definition of good and evil changes, it's something inherent to the human condition.

As for S&S being atheistic, most of it's filled to the brim with gods. Made up gods, gods from real world faiths, sometimes even the Abrahamic god in normal form or some sacreligous inversion. Both HF and S&S gods can and often are interventionist, but they show up in a Deist fashion as well. Heck, in Lord of the Rings God isn't particularly invovled in the affairs of the world, Sauron, Gandalf and the rest are angels and fallen angels.

Then look at Solomon Kane. Fights evil, moral rectitude, Christian (Puritan to be precise), etc. It's been a while but I'm willing to be the man prayed and swore oaths to God. God may not have answered, but that has more to do with an interesting story then any beliefs Howard may have had. Plus, as the saying goes, God helps those who help themselves. The protagonist hacking his way through monsters to slay the evil priest is far more interesting a story then one praying to God who makes it all better. This is why Frodo has to carry the Ring and Aslan needs the kids.

[TerraDave]

Hmm.

There was a very consipcous attempt to move from a Sword and Sorcery "style" to a High Fantasy one in the mid 1980's, even before 2nd ed. And there have then been various reactions against that over the years, including within 2n ed (ie Dark Sun).

But I think the biggest dynamic has been, from early on, a desire to codify and bring more options into the game. Each edition has in turn absorbed some of these new elements and rejected or modified others, trying to reconcile playability with all the things that had come in the previous wave of supplements.

I think this dynamic of complicating then rationalizing is much more important then the literary influances, which from early on have been so wide ranging--pulp fantasy, tolkien, mythology, tv and movies (this is not new), comic books, history, non-rpg games....--that it is pretty easy to see a particular style or influance if you look hard enough. But one could also say that the game really had its own style that was a distinct form of fantasy.

Finally, as far as I can tell, player entitlment started as soon as people begin making their charecters. Reading EGG/Col Pladohs various article and posting over the years and others about his and other early campaign, he and other players (and he was a player as well as a DM) seemed to feel pretty entitled.

[Keefe the Thief]

*Keefe the Thief wanders over to ENworld, scanning the threads. Reads a thread with the title beginning "History - HF vs. S&S gaming..."*

"Why, Keefe," Keefe said to himself. "Look, its one of those threads. You know what you´ll find once you click on it. You´ll find:

a) An OP that is far too long too read.

b) Using ever concieveable way for emphasizing parts of the text: bold, italics, color, using them not in moderation but rather going for the limit.

c) Trying to press the complex, ever-changing development that D&D went through into two distinct, antagonistic camps/styles/ways.

d) Using lots of oversimplifications in the process.

e) Is leaning a lot into one of the two camps it creates, calling one camp the "true" camp, sadly forgotten by those who do not understand D&Ds **real** history.

f) Making lots of generalizations about thousands of D&D players by saying stuff like "most people don´t want to play X" etc.

e) Ending by stating something similar to this: "..and now you´ll have to see that X was always meant to be Y in D&D, except you didn´t understand that and that is why you´ve been doing far too much Z in your game!"

"Well, Keefe," Keefe said to himself. "Do we want to click on the thread?"
"Yes," answered Keefe. "They are always so much fun."

[Obryn]

I think you're using the terms "Swords & Sorcery" and "High Fantasy" in ways that are different from how most of us understand the terms.

Specifically, there's nothing that's Swords & Sorcery about your list. Howard's Conan stories pretty much set the genre, and others like Lieber have made some excellent contributions. There's nothing about those stories which emphasizes random encounters or save-or-die mechanics. They're also written for story - they're far from story-less. Finally, the heroes most certainly do enjoy plot protection, given that they are the main characters in a series of adventures, and the author has a vested interest in both their success and their survival.

I know what you're getting at, but your terminology is incongruent. You're taking elements common to old-school gaming, but renaming them sword & sorcery, and I'm puzzled as to why - other than, without it, you would have less reason to write an article pioneering your view as somehow different or innovative. In short, you're renaming the old-school vs. new-school camps without actually adding anything to the distinctions on either side.

Also - too much bold, font size changes, and colored text. It makes your wall o' text look a little like crazy timecube ranting. Throwing religious arguments into it does, too.

-O

[jdrakeh]

There has been a big push in the 'old school' community to equate older editions of D&D with Swords & Sorcery genre fiction, but most of the people making that push either aren't very familiar with Swords & Sorcery genre fiction* or have completely redefined the term "Swords & Sorcery" to encompass mechanical conventions of D&D that are not commonly represented in the genre fiction or, alternately, have nothing to do with it at all (e.g., magic as a common instrument of protagonists, frequent protagonist death, random monster encounters, etc).

Claims that Swords & Sorcery fiction is written from an Atheist worldview (a cursory glance at any Conan story or Fafhrd and Mouser fiction reveals a multitude of deities) or that protagonists don't have plot immunity (what was the name of that story where Conan dies, again?) denote unfamiliarity with the subject matter, IMO. Or, mayhap, a familiarity only with the new 'definitions' of Swords & Sorcery being 'taught' by the folks I mention above.

*In the past, I've seen many people pushing for this association claim that the primary defining tenets of Swords & Sorcery genre fiction are the simple presence of swords and magic.

[Remathilis]

Also, the idea that D&D emulates S&S and is a poor fit for HF is nearly certainly destroyed by anyone who ever ran a successful Dragonlance (HF), Forgotten Realms (HF) or Ravenloft (Gothic Fantasy*) D&D game.


* Gothic Fantasy actually is a good example of both S&S and HF as the OP defines it living in harmony. While the mortality rate in some GF is quite high and the danger level amped up so that spiders ARE lethal, most GF is VERY character/story driven, hence why most Ravenloft Darklords have better defined backstories than the PCs in the game. In fact, many of RL's mechanics are designed to give plot-immunity to the MONSTERS, not the PCs, which (if we assume true) would lead us to the concept D&D gives an inordinate amount of "fair shakes" to the PCs in non-GF D&D (else why change the rules?)