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

[Remathilis]

Claims that Swords & Sorcery fiction is written from an Athiest worldview (a cursory glance at any Conan story or Fafhrd and Mouser fiction reveals a multitude of deities) ...

I think the OP was looking for a "classicist" view rather than an "aethist" view. S&S certainly have gods, but unlike the Judeo-Christian "all knowing, all loving" god the OP assigns to HF (the jury is still out on that association, but lets assume he's referring to the Tolkien/Lewis Christian analogy and roll with it). they are not either all knowing OR not all loving (removing the meddlesome rationale for evil & suffering to exist in the world). A character could be favored one moment, cursed the next, and he has no recourse except to accept the fate of the deities because they are more powerful than he. This the worldview of classical Greco-roman faith as well as other panthesitic faiths.

There is certainly nothing that assumes a godless world in S&S, just one where the deities are unknowable or unmoved by humanity at large.

 

[the Jester]

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

By the heavy jug of Bacchus, I think you've hit upon exactly the underlying source of what bothers me about a lot of 'modern' gamers and game styles.

I always preferred the Dark Ages sensibilities of old-skool Greyhawk over the Renaissance sensibilities of the Forgotten Realms. It's definitely a style thing, but I'm pleased to have read your analysis- it's a good, telling one.

 

[the Jester]

I think the OP was looking for a "classicist" view rather than an "aethist" view. S&S certainly have gods, but unlike the Judeo-Christian "all knowing, all loving" god the OP assigns to HF (the jury is still out on that association, but lets assume he's referring to the Tolkien/Lewis Christian analogy and roll with it). they are not either all knowing OR not all loving (removing the meddlesome rationale for evil & suffering to exist in the world). A character could be favored one moment, cursed the next, and he has no recourse except to accept the fate of the deities because they are more powerful than he. This the worldview of classical Greco-roman faith as well as other panthesitic faiths.

There is certainly nothing that assumes a godless world in S&S, just one where the deities are unknowable or unmoved by humanity at large.

It don't matter to Crom.

 

[Rechan]

Since Player Entitlement is such a dirty word, the opposite is DM Tyranny.

 

[the Jester]

Since Player Entitlement is such a dirty word, the opposite is DM Tyranny.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Absolutely agreed.

I tried to address these topics here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/257305-intro-materials-rcfg.html#post4819356), and would really like some feedback on my paltry efforts.

RC

 

[rogueattorney]

I think some of you need to give Zulgyan, who I do not believe is a native English speaker, a bit of a break with regard to some of his word choices. I don't think he was trying to be confrontational with his very thoughtful post.

I'm amused that I was a participant in that first thread he posted some 3 years ago. Nothing dies on the Internet.

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.

Dragonlance was the bellweather event in the transition Zulgyan is describing. You had to alter or ignore a number of 1e rules to run the original 1e Dragonlance modules. Among them xp for wealth and taking campaign time out to train. Both of those particular rules were dropped for 2e and the main reason why was to fit the epic campaign paradigm seen in Dragonlance and then emulated in many, many adventure modules thereafter. In a race to save the world from the Dark Evil Overlord, who has time to scrounge for gp or train?

Other than I6, the other two campaigns didn't have a single thing published for them until 1987, the year before 2e came out. The big shift had already happened. They were written with the latter, non-S&S concept of D&D in mind.

Frankly, I don't see why it's controversial at all to say that the folk who came to the game in the mid-80's or later were coming to the game familiar with a fairly different style of fantasy than those who came to the game earlier, and would thus have some different notions of how the fantasy world should work. I, for one, can say I got a much better understanding of what Gygax and co. were trying to do after finally reading some Lovecraft, Vance, and Anderson.

 

[mmadsen]

Old school D&D doesn't particularly resemble classic sword & sorcery fiction.

I think old school D&D does resemble pulp S&S fiction, but any Grand Unified Theory of D&D is going to fall down when it collides with the fact that D&D isn't just any one thing; it's an odd mishmash.

I don't remember Conan dying from a poison spider bite in the first story, then being reincarnated as a dryad.

Definitely being reincarnated as a dryad is one of those zany wahoo elements that exemplify that other facet of old school: it often wasn't very serious.

As for Conan not dying from a poison spider bite, true, he didn't, but that is exactly the kind of thing that would happen to the other guy: the thief who got there first, his temporary ally, his enemy holding him at spear point, etc. There was always the sense that life was cheap, and you could die senselessly at any moment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We also have to remember that Conan's story is being told in the past tense; he has already succeeded, and is long dead, before the first word is written. If he hadn't succeeded, generally, we wouldn't be following his story.

However, it is noteworthy that there are a fair number of REH stories in which the protagonist does not survive. And this includes S&S stories.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Fritz Leiber coined the S&S term with an eye to distinguishing his work from Tolkien's (or at least from The Lord of the Rings). Although Howard is widely acknowledged as a -- or even "the" -- master of the subgenre, he also wrote in a wide variety of other modes. His stories of Solomon Kane and Bran Mak Morn are among those others.

Taking "high fantasy" as a term for the Tolkien end of the spectrum, I would say that among its features is a deep concern with consequences beyond the personal. In TLOTR, Frodo and Samwise are not outsiders but members in good standing of society; their undertaking is not for the sake of adventure, but motivated by concern for the welfare of their community; and its outcome is of truly epic import, determining the fate of all Middle-Earth and ending an age.

Howard's Bran is not so successful in championing the cause of the Picts -- but his tale is a tragedy rather than a farce because of how it is developed.

Such a well-rounded tale may arise despite the vagaries of chance, but those can easily nip it in the bud. So, if one sets out expecting to play a central role in, or to tell, such a story then avoidance of disappointment entails making the necessary elements not subject to such whimsy.

Is that not a general trend in D&D (and other fantasy games) over the past decades?