Discussing Sword & Sorcery and RPGs

[pemerton]

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.

Sure. I think S&S has to be understood as encompassing more than just REH. I just get a bit bemused by pronouncements that such-and-such is not part of S&S when REH stories are replete with such-and-such.

I get the impression, by reputation, that Leiber's stories involve less moral/honourable protagonists than REH's Conan. Though I don't know if that's true.

I'm also not sure if The Dying Earth should be included in S&S or not - Vance definitely presents moral/honourable conduct in a very different light from REH, but this feeds through to the world in general. The whole thing is cynical in a way that Conan isn't, and that I think Moorcock isn't either (though some Moorcock characters might be).

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.

I fully agree with what you say about "hardboiled"/pulp detective fiction. I had almost made a post contrasting And Then There Were None with The Maltese Falcon, but held back because I've never actually seen the 1945 Christie film.

I think I might see more continuity between this "post-Victorian" style and modernism in the stricter sense than you do, but that seems pretty tangential to the main point. My criticism is amateur whereas my philosophy and social theory is professional, and by "modernism" I'm meaning more in thematic or politico-social terms than as an artistic movement. (And I certainly don't want to say that REH is an author who, in either technical or artistic terms, is on a par with (say) Hemingway; on the other hand I think the authors of WotC D&D books could learn a lot from reading REH and giving their work a good edit!)

I'll finish with a paragraph (or two, as it turns out) that is (are) probably more controversial (vis-a-vis you and probably vis-a-vis other posters too). I think that one problem with trying to "do S&S" using D&D is that D&D has already muddied the waters quite a bit. On the one hand, D&D is replete with the tropes of "high fantasy"/conservative romance - paladins, many clerics, Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarves and Orcs, many non-Planescape readings of the alignment system, etc.

On the other hand, the typical interpretation of dice rolls in D&D (as best I can tell from entirely non-scientific observation) is that they represent the workings of a cold, impersonal universe. Gygax's protestations to the contrary (eg in his discussions in his DMG of the fact that higher hp, and better saving throws and other abilities, represent the interventions of supernatural forces in favour of the PCs) never really seem to have taken hold. I'm not even sure Gygax believed them in his actual play, despite having written them in his rulebook. And this is S&S through-and-through: a universe without providence, and in which "fate" is just a label for what a person makes of him-/herself. I think this can sometimes make it a bit hard to focus on exactly what needs to be done to D&D to more purely align it with S&S play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'll finish with a paragraph (or two, as it turns out) that is (are) probably more controversial (vis-a-vis you and probably vis-a-vis other posters too). I think that one problem with trying to "do S&S" using D&D is that D&D has already muddied the waters quite a bit. On the one hand, D&D is replete with the tropes of "high fantasy"/conservative romance - paladins, many clerics, Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarves and Orcs, many non-Planescape readings of the alignment system, etc.

On this, specifically, I would say that D&D has always been both a composite and its own thing; however:

1. D&D, originally, was based primarily in S&S tropes, and glommed on to the Tolkien-esque "high fantasy" trappings because, um, Tolkien was popular during the 1970s. Saying D&D was high fantasy is similar to saying that Led Zeppelin was high fantasy- it had it, but it wasn't of it. If that makes sense. Sure, no one should buy what Gygax had to say (the influence of Tolien in some areas was indisputable), but the overall influence of the S&S works is even greater.

2. The alignment system of OD&D was hardcore Moorcock. Making it even more codified in early AD&D didn't lessen the influences.

3. The multiple material worlds, gonzo nature of the early D&D was also exceptionally in keeping with S&S. The multiverse, including the existence of "Earth" is practically lifted from The Swords of Lankhmar.

4. Even the early modules and the hoary tropes (what adventures wait for us at ye olde inne!) are firmly based in S&S genre.

Personally, I would say that the shift away from the composite/heavy S&S model in D&D to more explicit Tolkien-esque occurred with ... Dragonlance.

But that's neither here nor there. Maybe an essay for another time.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I suspect another difference between what we regard as High/Heroic/Epic Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery likely has to do with their literary precursors. Heroic Fantasy was strongly rooted in mytho-historical cycles/sagas and literary epics of old (e.g., Beowulf, Der Niebelungenlied, Arthurian Romance, The Iliad, Paradise Lost, etc.). Tolkien wanted to create an epic for mythic Britain. C.S. Lewis wanted to create a Christian allegory mythos. Lloyd Alexander was writing around a Brythonic/Welsh mythos.

In contrast, Sword & Sorcery came out of pulp adventure, short stories, Weird Tales, Edgar Rice Burroughs, etc. So we tend to think of Sword & Sorcery in terms of the adventures of Conan or the adventures of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser or the adventures of Elric. Sword & Sorcery tends to feel more episodic as a result. I think that this dovetails nicely with your point about hardboiled fiction, which, as you say, was another genre of pulp.

Obviously there are exceptions, such as the Finnish epic being inspiration for both Tolkien (i.e., Turin Turambar) and Moorcock (i.e., Elric). Also, Moorcock's Multiverse is something of a mythos, but it was primarily a gimmick for him to tell variations of stories set on different worlds and with different characters but with similar themes.

 

[pemerton]

I suspect another difference between what we regard as High/Heroic/Epic Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery likely has to do with their literary precursors. Heroic Fantasy was strongly rooted in mytho-historical cycles/sagas and literary epics of old (e.g., Beowulf, Der Niebelungenlied, Arthurian Romance, The Iliad, Paradise Lost, etc.). Tolkien wanted to create an epic for mythic Britain. C.S. Lewis wanted to create a Christian allegory mythos.

One doesn't want to collide with board rules, but it's pretty hard to ignore the theological character - and not abstract/intellectual but committed theological character - of a lot of romantic/high fantasy. Whereas REH Conan (and it seems to me, admittedly on a thinner evidence based, Moorcock and Vance) seem essentially atheistic.

Weaker high fantasy can bowdlerise this, of course - and maybe a lot of D&D falls into that territory. And likewise I think some weaker S&S bowdlerises in the other direction (I'm thinking of eg RPG-y stuff that takes the Cthulhu Mythos but gives it a type of evil theistic or "hostile-providential" reading).

@Snarf Zagyg's suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins. I think in S&S-oriented D&D they really have to go. Likewise clerics in the traditional sense. Likewise, I would say, druids and rangers - because these imply the possibility of a type of holistic integration of humanity and nature which I think conflicts with the "existentialist" (if that's not going too far) strand in S&S.

Wizards and of course warlocks are fine. And maybe bards. (I don't have enough of a handle on contemporary sorcerers to comment on them. I think 4e ones would be fine.)

I don't think it's a coincidence that this comes close to (not identical to) the Dark Sun class list!

 

[Dioltach]

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.​

​

Fair enough, and I'm not married to the idea that S&S heroes don't want to change the world. But I'm not convinced that Conan seized the throne of Aquilonia out of altruism more than opportunism.

What I should perhaps have said - and again, I'm not married to the idea - is that in S&S there's a greater sense of fatalism than in heroic fantasy, and less hopefulness. The world is as it is, and we're just trying to make our way in it.

This is reflected in stories by the general acceptance of corruption, inequality, evil counsellors, pirates, slavers, thieves and assassins. In gameplay, this means that virtually every NPC and every situation can become a hook or a challenge, as long as the players accept that their job isn't to rid the world of evil.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg's suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins.

I think that you put far too much emphasis on the inclusion of Paladins (Three Hearts and Three Lions).

I have a whole 'nother post about the origins of the subclasses in OD&D (and from there, AD&D). It was all ad hoc, and the introduction of separate subclasses (or even NPC classes in Dragon) isn't about the overall gestalt of the game.

Instead, the introduction of the module-on-rails, party with a destiny, and setting as explicit small-c conservative (as in Dragonlance, and definitely NOT Greyhawk) is the most obvious turn.

 

[Bilharzia]

Monster Island, an excellent campaign supplement for RuneQuest6/Mythras (and most BRP games) has some suggestions in its Campaign chapter. The chapter discusses these at length but these are the headlines:

First, this campaign supplement happens to be a sandbox which has its own definitions, but one that also fits a picaresque hero which aligns quite well with sword & sorcery.
So, a sandbox -

Not Everything is Meant to be Killed.
No good & evil amongst competing groups. NPCs can be met and interacted with as the players choose, likely with consequences later on. Your system should be tough and dangerous for the PCs (in this it's RQ6/Mythras). Prudence is the best protection.

There is no Game Balance.
The wilderness is filled with danger, this should be a prompt for inventiveness on the part of the players. Death and maiming is possible and even likely. Roll up several characters.

Every Action has a Consequence.
The sandbox region and inhabitants are dynamic, nothing remains static. Not all consequences are bad though, alliances may be formed.

Options and Objectives.
Overarching campaign plots are not necessary although the threads can be there to be picked up by players & PCs.

~Genre aspects of Sword & Sorcery~
The sandbox provides the framework within which a S&S game can be played:

- Living for the Day
Adventures are at a personal level. Quests are pragmatic not epic.

- No Black & White Morality
Flawed heroes, who do not reflect modern sensibilities.

- Healing is Hard
Magical healing is rare in S&S. This makes repetitive combat very dangerous.

- The Corrupting Power of Magic
Magic can be huge and sorcerers sacrifice personal morality. Magic is terrifying and deadly.

- Horror of the Unknown
The places and creatures encountered are strange, mysterious and alien (sometimes literally).

- Anthropocentric and Xenophobic
The protagonists are human, and most of the foes are too. When non-humans are met, they are almost always adversaries.

 

[TimWest]

This is reflected in stories by the general acceptance of corruption, inequality, evil counsellors, pirates, slavers, thieves and assassins. In gameplay, this means that virtually every NPC and every situation can become a hook or a challenge, as long as the players accept that their job isn't to rid the world of evil.

This chimes with how I see things. There's a lot of 'bad' stuff happening in the world and the characters can try to change it if they want, or it could impact them at any moment. But it's not necessarily an obvious thing that must be solved by the heroes.

I feel that in other kinds of fantasy characters will be much more likely to feel like they must fight injustice. Almost like a narrative magnet, this must be done because that's what heroes do.

What this means for gaming IMO is creating factions, NPCs etc that are doing their own thing. Much more of a sandbox approach. The world keeps turning whether the characters get involved or not. And sometimes the characters are impacted by the turning of the world.

 

[Dioltach]

I think that you put far too much emphasis on the inclusion of Paladins (Three Hearts and Three Lions).

On the subject of paladins, I think the Elenium series by David Eddings provides an excellent portrayal of how paladins can work in S&S. I'm not saying the books are strictly S&S, but they definitely come close in tone and feel. (I never finished the follow-up series, because it got a bit silly. An army of 400,000 Church Knights, if I recall correctly. And Eddings's "let's all have a group hug" style got very irksome.)

 

[Aldarc]

One doesn't want to collide with board rules, but it's pretty hard to ignore the theological character - and not abstract/intellectual but committed theological character - of a lot of romantic/high fantasy. Whereas REH Conan (and it seems to me, admittedly on a thinner evidence based, Moorcock and Vance) seem essentially atheistic.

Weaker high fantasy can bowdlerise this, of course - and maybe a lot of D&D falls into that territory. And likewise I think some weaker S&S bowdlerises in the other direction (I'm thinking of eg RPG-y stuff that takes the Cthulhu Mythos but gives it a type of evil theistic or "hostile-providential" reading).

I would, in general, agree with this idea. Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles aren't exactly theological, though they do tend to echo some of the ideas of Tolkien (e.g., the foretold rightful king, end of the BBEG, the journey to the west, etc.).

@Snarf Zagyg's suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins. I think in S&S-oriented D&D they really have to go. Likewise clerics in the traditional sense. Likewise, I would say, druids and rangers - because these imply the possibility of a type of holistic integration of humanity and nature which I think conflicts with the "existentialist" (if that's not going too far) strand in S&S.

Wizards and of course warlocks are fine. And maybe bards. (I don't have enough of a handle on contemporary sorcerers to comment on them. I think 4e ones would be fine.)

I don't think it's a coincidence that this comes close to (not identical to) the Dark Sun class list!

I agree that there are antithetical elements to S&S present before Dragonlance. However, I would say that in terms of overall trends, that Dragonlance (and possibly Ravenloft*) turned D&D with greater force towards heroic fantasy. I also don't think it's exactly a coincidence that OSR points to Dragonlance as "the beginning of the end" for Old School play in their revisionist historiographical narrative.

* Ravenloft is rooted in a Victorian romance that was itself quite small 'c' conservative and moralizing in its own regard.