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

[Desdichado]

If the heroes are more clearly "larger than life" from the start, then that may veer away from an "everyman turned hero by necessity" theme that seems to me prominent in Tolkien's works and their emulators.

That depends on whether or not you look at Lord of the Rings from the perspective that Frodo is the "hero" or Aragorn is, though.

(Lin Carter's "Thongor of Lemuria" cycle comes to mind as just such a melange as seems to me evocative of D&D.)

Not surprisingly. Lin Carter was (notoriously, in my opinion) famous for ripping off elements of earlier (and more talented) writers and essentially retelling them. He was able to get away with it, in part, because his emphatic fanboyism of the source material he was copying was at least somewhat charming.

As opposed to, say, L. Sprague de Camp, who did the same thing except with a pretentious, "these guys messed stuff up, so I'm going to 'do it right' complete with a self-righteous and dry lecture on where Howard, Burroughs, etc. did stuff 'wrong' which proves that I don't actually understand what makes these writers successful in the first place."

In that respect, Lin Carter reminds me of Gary Gygax in a lot of ways; an admiring fan who's tribute was to retell and re-use past masters's works in new ways. Gary, by converting them from literature into a game, did something much more innovative than Carter did, but I still think that the two of them were very much peas in the same pod in a way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Lin Carter was (notoriously, in my opinion) famous for ripping off elements of earlier (and more talented) writers and essentially retelling them. He was able to get away with it, in part, because his emphatic fanboyism of the source material he was copying was at least somewhat charming.

As opposed to, say, L. Sprague de Camp, who did the same thing except with a pretentious, "these guys messed stuff up, so I'm going to 'do it right' complete with a self-righteous and dry lecture on where Howard, Burroughs, etc. did stuff 'wrong' which proves that I don't actually understand what makes these writers successful in the first place."

Hey, whata ya know, Hobo. We agree on something here.

Of course, I disagree with you re: Gary (saving your opinion of the "admiring fan who's tribute was to retell and re-use past masters's works in new ways" for those who later decided to make "new" and "better" types of D&D.....including, of course, myself).

Post-Gary D&D is very much a pretentious, "this guy messed stuff up, so I'm going to 'do it right'" complete with a self-righteous and dry lecture on where Gary did stuff 'wrong' which proves that they don't actually understand what mades D&D successful in the first place.

RC