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

[jdrakeh]

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.

That's a pretty good argument for D&D not modeling S&S genre fiction (or at least Conan) as, in D&D, the PCs are generally taken to be analogous to Conan (i.e., the central protagonist) not the supporting cast.

 

[Ariosto]

That's a pretty good argument for D&D not modeling S&S genre fiction (or at least Conan) as, in D&D, the PCs are generally taken to be analogous to Conan (i.e., the central protagonist) not the supporting cast.

The very assumption that the game is a form of literature, and therefore has such a role as "central protagonist", is I think the fundamental departure from the original concept.

 

[mmadsen]

Well, first off the word you want is trope, not troupe. A troupe is a theater group, a trope is a literary theme, convention, or cliche.

As for your literary analysis, I think you got it wrong.

The protagonists of S&S stories won because they were the protagonists. S&S stories follow many of the same tropes as action movies. The protagonists may not be good guys but the antagonists are worse, violence, seducing beautiful women, and daring do solves all problems.

Well, first off the word you want is derring-do, not daring do.

(Isn't that annoying?)

Conan, Elric, Hawkmoon, et all win because they're the protagonists. Winning may be pyrrhic or just surviving, but they still enjoy massive amounts of plot protection.

I think the protagonists of any adventure story have "plot protection" to some extent, because they do something dangerous and survive.

The issue is, do we feel like the protagonists survived by being tough and lucky, or do we feel that they survived because it would be good for them to survive?

It gets even weirder when we consider that Conan is fated to become a king, Elric is fated to do all kinds of things, etc.

As for S&S being atheistic, most of it's filled to the brim with gods.

I don't think that's what he meant by atheistic, that the fictional world lacked gods. After all, Conan's world is full of priests and gods, but they aren't to be trusted.

 

[Dire Bare]

The very assumption that the game is a form of literature, and therefore has such a role as "central protagonist", is I think the fundamental departure from the original concept.

I would disagree. This may be heading somewhat off track, but roleplaying games are most definitely a form of literature. Board games and miniature games, usually not really (although some miniature games with strong backstory are, like the Warhammer games), but RPGs most definitely.

The collective D&D "literature" obviously goes beyond standard definitions of lit . . . you probably won't study it in lit class in school (yet). I'll even go so far as to label RPGs as art . . . but that perpetual argument probably shouldn't distract us too much . . .

At its heart, RPGs are all about storytelling, the oldest form of art/literature.

 

[Dire Bare]

My experience is that D&D is weird mixture of high fantasy and swords and sorcery (as you've been using the terms), regardless of edition.

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.

I defintely have noticed that popular fantasy literature has changed over the past 30 years or so. And D&D has evolved or changed right along with it.

But I agree that trying to shoehorn any edition of D&D into a single genre is madness! D&D has always been its own special mishmash of high fantasy, sword & sorcery, pulp, horror, and other fantastic genres (even sci fi!). The exact mixture has changed over the years perhaps, but D&D is still both high fantasy AND sword & sorcery, however you define the terms.

I think this is one of the major reasons the game has lasted as long as it has. No matter what sub-genre of fantasy floats your boat the most, you can run a D&D game of any edition in that style. You might have to change some of the rules and/or background assumptions slightly, but you can do it pretty easily.

I do think that the balance has moved towards a more high fantasy feel from older editions, but I think this started back with 2nd Edition. If you want a D&D with some more pulpy S&S feel, you might check out Paizo's Pathfinder. But both games still show that crazy mishmash of fantasy tropes.

 

[Krensky]

Well, first off the word you want is derring-do, not daring do.

(Isn't that annoying?)

Mine was a misspelling, since derring-do means daring to do, and is pronounced the same. His was a completely different word in meaning and pronunciation.

I think the protagonists of any adventure story have "plot protection" to some extent, because they do something dangerous and survive.

The issue is, do we feel like the protagonists survived by being tough and lucky, or do we feel that they survived because it would be good for them to survive?

It depends on the context. As a reader, the former. Under literary analysis, the later. Looking at the Conan stories mechanically, Conan survives because otherwise Howard would upset his readers and the magazines and starve. Conan was presented and sold as a two-fisted man of actiopn and passion. He is presented to the audience as a man who can not be beaten. If Howard had him fail (in this context, have him die or loose in any meaningful way) he would violate a the implicit contract between author and reader. He would have presented a story as being X, and then made it anti-X. If you sell something to a reader as one thing, and then give them the opposite, you annoy them and they stop reading.

It gets even weirder when we consider that Conan is fated to become a king, Elric is fated to do all kinds of things, etc.

And yet those are both S&S (anti-)heroes. The thesis of the OP was that in S&S the heroes have no guarantee of success or victory. Being fated to do something in the future pretty much is the antithesis of that. They may be fated to fail at that thing, or to bring nothing but sorrow and destruction to those around them, but they'll still survive what they're facing now because otherwise they can't go do that fated thing.

I don't think that's what he meant by atheistic, that the fictional world lacked gods. After all, Conan's world is full of priests and gods, but they aren't to be trusted.

Atheism means gods do not exist. Granted, in the case of Conan there's no real evidence that the gods are gods or even that they exist, a number of other Sword and Sorcery stories (Wagner's Kane series, de Camp's Pusadian series, others I'm surely forgetting) have very real gods (in the classical sense of a god, anyway). On the other side, there's Shannara for a HF or EF world with no gods. Basically, his assertion of religous underpinnings to either sub-genre is completely off base.

 

[Cadfan]

I disagree. Kind of a lot.


1. I think this is more of a "just so story" than an actual explanation of the history of D&D. I simply do not believe that during the design of OD&D actual thought went into differentiating fantasy sub genres. These sub genres weren't even that widely acknowledged until more recent times.

2. That being said, the fictional inspirations of D&D have changed over time. Vance and Howard and Tolkien are less central, though certainly still present.

3. Whenever you find yourself using the phrase "sense of entitlement" to refer to someone who doesn't have power, consider not talking. In that context it is a semi polite way of calling someone "uppity."

4. I understand why someone from a christian background might perceive the worlds of Howard and company as atheistic. They're wrong, obviously, but from a christian perspective a god who isn't omniscient and all powerful, and who has foibles, commits sins and crimes, and can be bargained with, isn't really a god in the sense that they traditionally understand. Such a creature is really more of a very powerful person. "Atheistic" is still a mislabeling, though, for the obvious reason that not every culture worships the way modern christians do. Someone who was interested in investigating this topic might make an effort at reading through the old testament, actually.

5. For everyone in the thread who feels that classic Sword and Sorcery is the dark end of the fantasy genre, there's a man here who wants to speak with you about the modern dark fantasy subgenre. His name is Sand dan Glokta.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I haven't read through the essays you linked to, so take my comments with that in mind.

It sounds here to me like you are redefining what Sword & Sorcery and High Fatasy are to help support your claims. Personally, High Fantasy has little to do with Christianity, any more than Sword and Sorcery has to do with Atheism.

Conan, Elric, Fafhrd & Grey Mouser... each are icons of Sword & Sorcery literature (though Elric COULD be considered High Fantasy, as there seems to be more fantastical than grim & gritty.) But their stories had just as many elements that made sense in 4e as elements that would only be found in OD&D games. And each were rife with Gods. Good ones, Evil Ones and even indifferent ones. Ones that stayed out of the affairs of mortals and ones that were actively involved.

In my opinion, your non-exhaustive list are things that differentiate the gaming movements aren't any more important than the following are differentiations:

• Unified Mechanics vs. unrelated and inconsistent subsystems
• PCs follow/don't follow same rules as NPCs or other "DM" elements
• Structured real-world style Ecologies vs. Orcs bunking next to Shriekers next to lurkers and mimics in interconnecting stone 20x20 rooms.
• "I can only have an 16 in that stat?" vs "Awesome, a 14!"
• APs vs Sandbox vs Delves with Minis
• Narrativist vs Simulationist vs Gamist

And yet, NONE of these have anything to do wth High Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery by any definition of the terms that are commonly known by gamers.

We played high fantasy with AD&D back in 1978 and it worked just fine. And I have run a Swords & Sorcery style game with d20 and OGL games.

I guess, I just don't agree that we need to redefine these terms in an effort to (once again) create another divide between what is fun for two different groups.

Some like "old-school" style rulesets (and I really dislike that term) and some like the OGL edition or the current edition.

I guess what I am asking is...... What is the point of the exercise?

Between a recent Grognardia article and this one, I am starting to feel like there are people that are bent on driving a wedge deeper between disagreeing factions of our hobby.

I ask.... "To what end?"

People look to drive a wedge because we aren't living under the same tent anymore. Back during the 3E/OGL days, vastly different people playing RPGs in vastly different ways could all be playing under the 3E/OGL tent. Simulationist, gamist, old school retro clones, high fantasy, S&S, whatever it was, it could be found somewhere in the 3E/OGL world.

Then a new edition was released, and 4E D&D removed itself from the 3E/OGL world. Not only was 4E disconnected from the open gaming community, but the game itself was radically changed to the point where it was a completely new game with little resemblance to 3E/OGL RPGs. To top it off, instead of the all inclusive customizable toolbox that 3E strived to be, 4E is a sleek focused ruleset designed to do what it does best at the expense of all else.

Driving a deeper wedge comes from the fact that a lot of people who have switched to the new edition have left the 3E/OGL world behind(in a lot of cases, never to return), and that fans who still prefer 3E/OGL feel they have been left behind.

Its like a divorce where both sides need to feel they are right.

 

[Rechan]

I think this is one of the major reasons the game has lasted as long as it has. No matter what sub-genre of fantasy floats your boat the most, you can run a D&D game of any edition in that style. You might have to change some of the rules and/or background assumptions slightly, but you can do it pretty easily.

Aye. Also, that D&D is the ultimate melting pot RPG, and the gateway RPG for any other system. Everybody knows what Dungeons and Dragons is, and anyone who's ever played an RPG has at least rolled a d20 and fought an orc.

 

[Rechan]

Its like a divorce where both sides need to feel they are right.

More like a vocal minority in both camps feel that way, while the majority of either just want to play the game they like.