Discussing Sword & Sorcery and RPGs

[Tonguez]

But he doesn't then go and try to change the world. Even though he disagrees with how things are done, he himself isn't affected by it: he can fight his way out of trouble. He doesn't worry about the common people who don't have his strength and who have to suffer the consequences of a corrupt system.

thats quite a different position to your earlier premise that S&S the heroes like it the way it is rather Conan and others beleive that each person must live their own life and achieve their own freedom 'by their own hand'. Referencing permertons quote, no doubt Conan gave a small degree of admiration to the young soldier for standing upto the abusive guard and escaping with his sweetheart, that boy took action against the corrupt system and thus has worth in a s&s world

 

[pemerton]

But he doesn't then go and try to change the world. Even though he disagrees with how things are done, he himself isn't affected by it: he can fight his way out of trouble. He doesn't worry about the common people who don't have his strength and who have to suffer the consequences of a corrupt system.

From The Phoenix on the Sword:

"When I overthrew the old dynasty," he [ie Conan] continued . . . "it was easy enough. . .

"When I overthrew Numedides, then I was the Liberator - now they spit at my shadow. They have put a statue of that swine in the temple of Mitra, and people go and wail before it, hailing it as the holy effigy of a saintly monarch who was done to death by a red-handed barbarian. When I led her armies to victory as a mercenary, Aquilonia overlooked the fact that I was a foreigner, but now she can not forgive me.

"Now in Mitra's temple there come to burn incense to Numedide's memory, men whom his hangmen maimed and blinded, men whose sons died in his dungeons, whose wives and daughters were dragged into his seraglio. The fickle fools!"​

And from The Scarlet Citadel:

The streets of Tamar swarmed with howling mobs . . . The barons had deserted the royal capital, galloping away to secure their castles against marauding neighbours. The well-knit kingdom Conan had built up seemed tottering on the edge of dissolution, and commoners and merchants trembled at the imminence of a return of the feudalistic regime. The people howled for a king to protect them against their own aristocracy no less than foreign foes.​

I don't think that the texts bear out the notion that Conan is indifferent to the suffering of the common people. I think The Hour of the Dragon would reinforce this.

What makes it S&S rather than political melodrama is the cause of King Conan's problems. In The Phoenix on the Sword, Prospero begins by blaming the poet Rinaldo, who "sings songs that make men mad"; but Conan responds that "thre is something hidden, some undercurrent of which we are not aware". Of course that is Thoth-amon. In the Scarlet Citadel, the ultimate threat is not the armies of Ophir or Koth but Tsotha-lanti. And in The Hour of the Dragon its Xaltotun.

We can see (some of) the difference between REH's Conan and LotR in the relationships between politics and evil wizardry. In JRRT's work, victory over Sauron means re-establishing the rightful king and feudal regime. Establishing Faramir as a vassal of Aragorn in Ithilien is a good thing. Whereas in Conan, feudalism is caused by dark magic (and Stygia, which is REH's version of an "ancient and mysterious land", we have even darker magic giving us even less desirable and less modern forms of goverment) and defeating the evil wizards is a victory for individual will against social conformity.​

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, as everyone else, you are welcome to prove me wrong.
If you have examples of stories that feel like Sword & Sorcery and that have protagonists who are well integrated and influential people in their society and its institutions, who feel obligate to a duty to the public or loyalty to a lord, and who make attempts to solve conflicts through diplomacy and peaceful means, or delegate the dirty work to others, then I'd really be happy to hear them.

Conan becomes king, but he's not accepted by the people. Fafhrd and Gray Mouser are self-absorbed leeches. Elric may have a crown, but is exiled from his Empire in everything but name. Kane is the boogyman.
Now Jirel can be assumed to be well respected and beloved as ruler of her domain, but all the stories take place away from her people so none of her status is of any use on her adventures. And she also descends alone into nightmarish realms with a sword in hand. I believe the same applies to Bran Mac Morn.

I believe I failed to clarify my point.

I'm not saying your three points are wrong.

I'm saying they're not particularly useful to distinguish S&S from other fantasy gaming.

Have a nice day.

 

[CapnZapp]

Also, upthread @CapnZapp said that S&S doesn't involve moral heroes. But in most of the REH Conan stories Conan chooses to sacrifice his own self-interest (eg treasure he might take) to do the right thing as that is framed in the story (eg The Tower of the Elephant; Jewels of Gwahlur).

I tried to make the point that S&S heroes CAN do good deeds, but aren't expected to and aren't punished (by the story or the GM) when they choose not to.

This as contrast to both actually good-aligned characters from other fantasy AND the misunderstanding S&S heroes should be borderline evil.

Actually choosing to be good when you don't have to and aren't particularly rewarded for it is arguably stronger than how doing the right thing isn't a real choice in regular fantasy, since the scenario pretty much always takes it for granted and the GM thus runs out of preparation if you don't.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough...

 

[CapnZapp]

in no way did Conan like the way things were, he just knew that the only way to change his circumstance was to take matters in to his own hands.

Sure but now we're back to: how does this help us set S&S apart?

 

[CapnZapp]

REH's Conan stories are full of criticisms of the Hyborian Age world, typically put into Conan's voice. See eg his monologue at the start of Queen of the Black Coast:

"By Crom, though I've spent considerable time among you civilized peoples, your ways are still beyond my comprehension.

"Well, last night in a tavern, a captain in the king's guard offered violence to the sweetheart of a young soldier, who naturally ran him through. But it seems there is some cursed law against killing guardsmen, and the boy and his girl fled away. It was bruited about that I was seen with them, and so today I was haled into court, and a judge asked me where the lad had gone. I replied that since he was a friend of mine, I could not betray him. Then the court waxed wroth, and the judge talked a great deal about my duty to the state, and society, and other things I did not understand, and bade me tell where my friend had flown. By this time I was becoming wrathful myself, for I had explained my position.

"But I choked my ire and held my peace, and the judge squalled that I had shown contempt for the court, and that I should be hurled into a dungeon to rot until I betrayed my friend. So then, seeing they were all mad, I drew my sword and cleft the judge's skull; then I cut my way out of the court, and seeing the high constable's stallion tied near by, I rode for the wharfs, where I thought to find a ship bound for foreign ports."​

Mental note: make sure to disarm Conan before bringing him before a judge.

In fact, have all the guards put away their swords too as he'll otherwise just take one of theirs.

Then have a dozen expert crossbowmen att the balustrade.

 

[MGibster]

Also, upthread @CapnZapp said that S&S doesn't involve moral heroes. But in most of the REH Conan stories Conan chooses to sacrifice his own self-interest (eg treasure he might take) to do the right thing as that is framed in the story (eg The Tower of the Elephant; Jewels of Gwahlur).

Conan is kind of interesting that way. In Jewels of Gwahlur, he saves Muriela at the expense of the jewels he worked very, very hard to acquire. And for those who haven't read the story, Conan spent months researching, putting himself in a position to go to the sacred city with the treasure, and risking his neck but when he had to decide between the jewels and saving Muriela he saved her without hesitation. He just met her that afternoon so it's not like he had a strong connection to her. But Conan wasn't the least bit angry and just decided to move on to his next scheme which he figured Muriela would be valuable to him. On the flip side, Conan sees nothing wrong with taking up a life of piracy raiding the coast with Bêlit or banditry as leader of Afghuli hillmen.

 

[TimWest]

I think the story of Conan being dragged into something is a good example of how to start an S&S adventure. It shows how difficult it is to just live in peace and be left alone. Because the environment is one in which people are all fighting to get ahead in some way. It's hard not to be affected somehow.

It's not good enough to want to just opt out and as I said before, you need to run just in order to stand still.

Characters need to get out there, do their best to acquire wealth, power, skills etc. because the world is going to be beating you down continually.

 

[Yora]

Someone mentioned reputation earlier, and I think that could actually be a cool mechanic to track separately from experience.
Somewhat paradoxically, I think most Sword & Sorcery protagonists actually crave validation. Generally not to be loved by the masses, because the masses are stupid and keep supporting a social system that is against their interests. And to characters like these, being hated is not a bad thing when it's by the people they consider idiots and villains. Many of those characters who display a lot of antisocial behavior do it to assert their power. They do what they want and nobody can stop them. Or they do what they know to be right, knowing that it will piss of a lot of people, and enjoy that they are chipping away at their mistaken believes.

Having reputation as a mechanic that influences how NPCs defer to their demands could probably be a nice motivator for players.

Worlds Without Number has an interesting system (which I have not tried yet in action), in which the players can decide to make lasting changes to the society around them, and the scale and degree of the change determines the cost in Reputation points they have to invest to make it happen. These costs can very quickly get pretty outrageous when all the relevant circumstances are factored, so there are various ways to reduce the cost. One way is to alter the circumstances through adventures, like literally destroying opposition to their goal. Another one is to throw money at it, which can be bribes, donations, financing public works, or whatever the players can think of that would make some of those people happy that they need to get on their side. (Seems like a great way to make money desirable and get players to spend large sums.)
And if after all of that, they still don't have the reputation to swing things around, the PCs can always go on other adventures to gain additional fame with impressive deeds, which will make people take their demands more seriously when they return.

Sure but now we're back to: how does this help us set S&S apart?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Fine. But the trappings matter. It's an established method of gameplay alright but what you feel you can do in the world and how NPCs react matter.

The fact you could have the exact same story in Forgotten Reams and Hyboria doesn't mean S&S isn't its own thing.

I agree wholeheartedly! I already wrote pretty extensively on it (both here, and prior threads). The comment you were responding to was because the OP didn't want further discussion of the trappings or genre of S&S (at the time, apparently), but only on the hook used to start the S&S adventure, which I had trouble understanding for the reasons I explained.

@pemerton Your thorough knowledge of REH and Conan is, as always, appreciated, but I'd like to throw in a small quibble, and also expand on a very good point you made.

First, I think you've acknowledged that you aren't familiar with Lieber et al. ("I've never read Leiber and haven't read much Moorcock.") While REH's Conan is, of course, S&S, we can't single-source a genre. The difficulty in making pronouncements about S&S as a genre is just that- at a minimum, it encompasses REH's Conan, Lieber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, and Moorcock's Elric- which have similarities, but also disparate elements.

In that sense, S&S is very much like film noir, in that the genre borders are difficult to understand.

But I wanted to concentrate on something you said separately which I completely agree with, albeit perhaps I might quibble with a little bit of the phrasing given we are talking about a literary genre:

But as I see it the main contrast between S&S and JRRT-ish fantasy is that the former is modernist, even sometime existentialist - it presents the world as inherently lacking in value, and it is the action of the protagonists that imposes truth and meaning on the world - whereas JRRT-ish fantasy is conservative - it posits a world laden with meaning, and the path of heroism is identifying that meaning and having the faith and courage to act in accordance with it.

I would start by saying that S&S is not modernist in the literary sense, although it is modern. Just a small definitional quibble, given that I wouldn't want people to confuse the genre and think that Howard and Lieber are writing in the same vein as Joyce and Faulkner. Sure, a person can make the argument that REH, Lieber, Moorcock et al. are part of the pre-war proto-modernist movement (Conrad, et al.) but that's a topic for another time- anyway, I think that it would be better to say modern.

And here, I think you are exactly correct. S&S is, essentially, modern fantasy, while high fantasy (Tolkien, et al.) is essentially small-c "conservative" fantasy. Most Tolkien-esque fantasy has, in addition to the usual "high magic," the following:
A. A world (way of life) that is either under attack and needs to be defended from outside ("evil") forces, or a world that has succumbed to those evil forces and needs to be restored.
B. A protagonist who is a protagonist of right. Whether it's bloodline (Harry Potter), or destiny (Taran), or there's a hidden king somewhere or other (Strider/Aragorn), there is always a protagonist that that is awesome because s/he was just born that way.

I think you are 100% correct in noting that S&S tends to eschew these conservative aspects of high fantasy. In fact, if I had to compare it to any genre, I would probably say it is most similar to the "hardboiled," - another pulp genre that is modern, and rejected the older detective approach (Christie, Doyle). In hardboiled, you usually have the characters dealing with a modern and industrial system that choose to operate outside of the system, rendering them morally ambiguous at times (anti-heroes), even when they act in moral fashion.

Finally, to move this full circle, the irony of all of this is that D&D started by reflecting, in many ways, the S&S traditions- while Tolkien was undoubtedly an influence, S&S was still a strong and recognized influence in both the game and in fantasy literature. Over time, however, D&D (and the playing groups) incorporated more small-c conservative genre aspects from Tolkien and the glut of Tolkien imitators from the late 70s and 80s in the very fallow fantasy field.