Discussing Sword & Sorcery and RPGs

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree that OD&D is very S&S {snip}

I wanted to address this further when I had the chance, which I do now. This specific topic came up before when discussing the Greyhawk setting. Here's the (very) lengthy thread starter:

D&D General - For the Love of Greyhawk: Why People Still Fight to Preserve Greyhawk

On the recent thread regarding the upcoming hardcover book and a discussion regarding Iggwilv and Tasha- https://www.enworld.org/threads/iggwilv-tasha-to-join-volo-xanathar-and-mordenkainen-updated.674231/ .... a discussion broke out about Greyhawk, and canon, and what is good, and bad, so on...

www.enworld.org

There was a brief companion thread later about genres and campaign settings (more on Eberron as noir) here:

D&D General - Genres and Campaign Settings, and why D&D is not a Work of Literature

Moving somewhat tangentially from the previous 3,804 threads on Greyhawk (numbers are approximate), I thought I'd go more deeply into a discussion about why there is a limit to analogies regarding campaign settings and genre. While this topic originally came up regarding Greyhawk and "Swords and...

www.enworld.org

Getting to the original topic, there are those (such as me) who might describe the original, 1983 and prior, Greyhawk setting as S&S.

On the other hand, there are those who might observe that D&D itself, in 1983 and prior to that, was more S&S, therefore the default setting wasn't necessarily S&S in and of itself, so much as it was a conduit for the default playstyle, which was more S&S-influenced.

Which brings up the natural questions- what, about early D&D (OD&D, early AD&D, Moldvay) is S&S? I would put forth that the following factors combined in various ways to make it feel more S&S, in terms of providing a better definition of the term specifically for the TTRPG genre (with the assumption that "Early OD&D mimicked S&S"). One factor that is also lurking within the background is that the people playing back then were necessarily more influenced by the writers of the S&S genre, since they were more current and well-known at that time than they are now.

1. Danger. Look, it's not like Conan or Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser or Elric were getting killed off in every short story (let me introduce you to Conan II!). But early D&D was certainly dangerous- whether in terms of traps, death, TPKs, or any number of other factors. While this mapping to the literary genre is inexact, there was a real feeling of danger to the characters, because the world was dangerous, and the characters could (and would) die.

2. Good doesn't necessarily triumph. This is not Tolkien or Lloyd Alexander; the heroes are not destined to do great things, and good does not win out. Sometimes evil triumphs. In the long run, maybe it's inevitable.

3. Complex and gritty. Look, it's a fantasy world, but it's a fantasy world that's out to get you. Civilization exists in patches, and where it does exist, it's not always a great thing; great power corrupts, and great kingdoms (or, in the case of Greyhawk, the Great Kingdom) are likely to be corrupt and fallen. A thieves' guild is likely to be the real power, if not the Mayor.

4. Low magic. This is a rather ... we'll say arguable topic, as people love to discuss what defines low magic. But in early D&D, there were no cantrips, and magic users were notoriously underpowered for many levels; you could and would have multiple combats go by without any spellcasting. Because spellcasting took a while, and due to initiative, the ability of martial characters in your party to "disrupt" evil spellcasters was always present, giving some verisimilitude to the S&S trope of the swordsman who has to close in with the sorcerer.

5. Ye olde inne. Look, it's a hoary trope now, but the concept of a group of mercenaries looking to be hired for a job ... that's as S&S as you get. There are no grand adventure paths- just jobs to be done, tombs to be raided, and, um, modules to do. In other words, the standard S&S trope of the mercenary was reflected in the episodic nature of the game- in early D&D, this is reflected by the presence of shorter, standalone modules that can be integrated into the campaign.

6. Characters are selfish. I don't want to put too much of an emphasis on this- the PCs will have other interests and other goals, but when we discuss S&S, the characters aren't saving the kingdom because it's the right thing to do- they do it because they are paid (and, often, double-crossed). In early D&D, this is reflected by the emphasis on money as XP.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just replying to make this post appear in the list of threads I participate in.

 

[Yora]

Could we please not have this discussion about how genres are defined in this thread? I really do appreciate the engagement, but the debate of what is Sword & Sorcery or not usually ends up burying every discussion that talks about Sword & Sorcery.
The topic here is how to prepare and run adventures that evoke a Sword & Sorcery feel.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Could we please not have this discussion about how genres are defined in this thread? I really do appreciate the engagement, but the debate of what is Sword & Sorcery or not usually ends up burying every discussion that talks about Sword & Sorcery.
The topic here is how to prepare and run adventures that evoke a Sword & Sorcery feel.

By understanding the issue and the history, you answer your question.

The first two are where I see some challenges pop up. When the PCs should have their own stakes in what is going on, but they also should be free agents and wildcards, how do you set up the hook to get them involved in the first place?

Traditionally, S&S in D&D is accomplished pretty simply- to quote Goodman Games:
The protagonists in sword-and-sorcery fiction are most often thieves, mercenaries, or barbarians struggling not for worlds or kingdoms, but for their own gain or mere survival. They are rebels against authority, skeptical of civilization and its rulers and adherents. While the strengths and skills of sword-and-sorcery heroes are romanticized, their exploits take place on a very different stage from one where lovely princesses, dashing nobles, and prophesied saviors are cast as the leads. Sword-and-sorcery heroes face more immediate problems than those of questing kings. They are cousins of the lone gunslingers of American westerns and the wandering samurai of Japanese folklore, traveling through the wilderness to right wrongs or simply to earn food, shelter, and coin.

In the classic mode, the players are (as you put it) the free agents and the wildcards; put another way, they are mercenaries- sellswords. Their own stake is to continue to earn food, shelter, and coin, especially early on.

The "hook" should just be that- the desire of the players to adventure, to make money, to gain for themselves. You don't need to shipwreck them. There is no requirement that they start out at a particular disadvantage.

The nature of what they do (and want) provides the course of the campaign; if they take X adventure from Y petty noble, then maybe they anger Z noble, who will then endeavor to make like ... difficult for them. Or maybe Y noble doesn't want to pay them. Or perhaps their renown attracts the attention of others, higher up the foodchain, requiring a quick retreat away from the supposed-homebase that they are in.

In other words, the difficulty in understanding your question is because this is already an established method of gameplay that goes to the origins of D&D; to ask "What hook could I possibly come up with for S&S campaigns," seems odd, but perhaps I misunderstand the question you ask. Who knows.

 

[pemerton]

I've been writing about a solo game and that's pretty much how I kicked things off.

1. I started the game when my character and a fellow NPC just survived a shipwreck. They were captives and was their chance to escape, they had to evade other survivors of the shipwreck.
2. They decided to make their way to a city that they had heard of.
3. After an adventure they reach the city but they don't have freedom to enter.
4. They meet someone who will help them in exchange for a task.
5. Something goes wrong and they are captured again.

Do you mean literally solo? Or one player + one GM?

If the latter, how was it established at (2) that the protagonists had heard of the city?

 

[TimWest]

Do you mean literally solo? Or one player + one GM?

If the latter, how was it established at (2) that the protagonists had heard of the city?

Yes I'm playing it on my own, no GM, using the IronSworn rules. I just decided that the other character knew about the city and would be able to lead us there. In reality I'm playing two characters at the moment but the main one is statted out completely while the other is only done using the game's Companion asset.

 

[Aldarc]

In the classic mode, the players are (as you put it) the free agents and the wildcards; put another way, they are mercenaries- sellswords. Their own stake is to continue to earn food, shelter, and coin, especially early on.

The "hook" should just be that- the desire of the players to adventure, to make money, to gain for themselves. You don't need to shipwreck them. There is no requirement that they start out at a particular disadvantage.

The nature of what they do (and want) provides the course of the campaign; if they take X adventure from Y petty noble, then maybe they anger Z noble, who will then endeavor to make like ... difficult for them. Or maybe Y noble doesn't want to pay them. Or perhaps their renown attracts the attention of others, higher up the foodchain, requiring a quick retreat away from the supposed-homebase that they are in.

In other words, the difficulty in understanding your question is because this is already an established method of gameplay that goes to the origins of D&D; to ask "What hook could I possibly come up with for S&S campaigns," seems odd, but perhaps I misunderstand the question you ask. Who knows.

It's also helpful to avoid framing the sort of tropes and stakes that lend themselves to heroic play. The BBEG doesn't threaten THE world; they threaten YOUR world as an individual.

As an aside: I think that it would be quite fun to design a Sword & Sorcery campaign world for Cortex Prime. One could easily frame the usual S&S motivations in a prime set (e.g., Values: Steel, Wealth, Revenge, Glory, Romance, Freedom, etc.), which means that players would actively be engaging these tropes when making rolls.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's also helpful to avoid framing the sort of tropes and stakes that lend themselves to heroic play. The BBEG doesn't threaten THE world; they threaten YOUR world as an individual.

As an aside: I think that it would be quite fun to design a Sword & Sorcery campaign world for Cortex Prime. One could easily frame the usual S&S motivations in a prime set (e.g., Values: Steel, Wealth, Revenge, Glory, Romance, Freedom, etc.), which means that players would actively be engaging these tropes when making rolls.

Good points- I think that it would not just be fun, but also a very useful exercise to see how different systems implement S&S!

 

[MGibster]

I think what will shut down a S&S feel is a sense that the players have to find out what the GM has in mind for their PCs to do. This gives the game a detective-story feel, not a S&S one.

The GM could just tell the PCs what's going on and start adventures in media res.

Your informant confirmed that Zenobia was born in the ancient kingdom of Corithia, and knowing that her tomb might still be found among the crumbling ruins, you journeyed there in hopes of learning more about your antediluvian adversary, but her unholy sepulcher has proven difficult to locate. In the meanwhile, you find yourself employed in the king's guard, where you have risen to captain allowing you both the funds and access to learned men and scholars who can aid you in finding Zenobia's tomb. But beware! You cannot help but notice the jealous eyes of the aristocracy staring at the foreign barbarian who attained the king's trust and such a lofty position....

It's also helpful to avoid framing the sort of tropes and stakes that lend themselves to heroic play. The BBEG doesn't threaten THE world; they threaten YOUR world as an individual.

And the goals are somewhat personal as well. You're not saving a kingdom for the sake of saving it, you're saving it because it's rightfully yours. Or you're clashing with that evil cult because they've squatted in this ancient temple and you know the Crown of Athos is in there somewhere.

 

[pemerton]

The GM could just tell the PCs what's going on and start adventures in media res.

<snip>

And the goals are somewhat personal as well. You're not saving a kingdom for the sake of saving it, you're saving it because it's rightfully yours.

I think there is a potential for tension between the first and second bits of what I've quoted. That's why I was suggesting a greater degree of player-generation of the focus of play.