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

[Zulgyan]

Very good posts all round folks, even those I don't agree on.

Some quick clarifications because I'm a bit hurried. I run the risk of beign unclear, but hey.

1) I don't wish to be controversial. I want, if posible, end with the old school vs. new school conflict and take the discussion a bit higher conceptually, and see where all the controversy comes from.

2) There are some obvious difference bewteen how literature and gaming work. To keep the article shot, I just focused on the similarities.

3) Conan wins against all odds because he is a literary protagonist, no doubt. But the novels constantly stress that it's all about his own skill, resourcefulness and luck, with no intervention from a Christian-like god how wants good to win over evil. His story is a "success story" that had no guarantees of being that way - that's how the author presents the world. An uncaring, amoral universe. Conan wins because he is strong, not because he is good.

That can be recreated in gaming, by reducing DM intervention to "keep the story right" and by reducing the system elements that control plot: balanced encounters (even though it might be a misinterpretation of the rules, it is one misinterpretation that is quite widespread), treasure prescriptions, linear adventure design, etc.. If you take distance from story manipulation and you reduce player entitlement, and you just let the players alone with no DM or system help, struggling against a hostile world: the end result will feel much more like a S&S novel. All their success will be self gained.

But don't take this to the extreme of course, we are talking about just an guiding principle that can have it's exceptions.

2) In S&S literature you have gods with minuscule, not the judeo-cristian God that has a plan of salvation where good will triumph over evil. S&S gods are just superpowerful beings, that commit mistakes, have character flaws, and fight each other to control the world, not to redeem it. And they are not responsible for it's creation either. So they are not really gods the way most modern theology and philosophy interpret it. That's why I used the word atheism, that might have been confusing. But remember that Howard was himself an atheist, and the gods from his novels are a criticism to theism in a symbolical way, because the are either evil or unhelpful.

3) The cleric class is confusing, but you can interpret their gods as just a powerful beings who can squish vancian spells into your brain.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

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

Teh Interwebs: Home of vocal minorites

 

[Ariosto]

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

That may be how you describe "RPGs", but that is not how Gygax described D&D in its manuals.

OD&D by its own description offers methods for setting up and refereeing "wargames campaigns".

By 1978, the distinction of "role playing campaign" was established. Yet still there is no mention of "storytelling" in the Players Handbook description of the game.

The Dungeon Masters Guide offers this:

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. ... ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.

Did stories naturally emerge among the participants, just as they do among participants in the events of real life? Were there post hoc narratives, selecting those details that made best for a dramatic presentation? Yes!

That, however, was something after and outside the actual process of playing the game. To call something with such a posterior position the "heart" of the affair is a most curious usage!

Now, it is certainly possible start with a story to tell and arrange things to that end. If you call that definitive of RPGs, though, then the seminal D&D games were not RPGs.

 

[Zulgyan]

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

Hey dude, just sharing a personal analysis some might find interesting, even if they don't agree. I can't care less about how people miles and miles away from me are playing. Each will have fun it's own way and that's great. I don't wish to establish myself as the RPG police.

I don't consider myself be part of any "movement". You are taking it too seriously. This is just a game.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Not just the fictional inspiration the edition designers pull from, but the inspiration for D&D players has changed. Those in their early 20s have very different reference sources than those who played the game early on. A recent thread asked those who were under 25 what early D&D material they had readl (Vance, REH, etc). Few had read more than 2 or 3. It will dwindle with even newer players.

So the genre is moving because the next generations of gamers have less experience with the materials of the previous one. They want to emulate what they have read, seen and relate to, instead of what their dad's generation read, seen, and relate to.

The game reflects that shift.

 

[Rechan]

I don't consider myself be part of any "movement". You are taking it too seriously. This is just a game.

I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to thecasualoblivion's post.

In that post he said:

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.

That sounds like taking it seriously. I was countering his observation with my own.

Besides, the section you quoted, I was saying that the majority aren't part of a movement, they just want to play the game. So, your reply seems very out of context to what you quoted.

Finally, I think "It's just a game" is a copout. To just dismiss D&D as "Just a game" is like dismissing the love of a family pet because "it's just an animal". Yes, D&D is a game with rulebooks. But to the people who play it, being a game and being important are not mutually exclusive. It's their favorite pass time. It's something they spend lots of time working on, improving, and engaged in. It's their adolescence and adulthood. It's their fond memories of good times with their friends. It's nostalgia. It's their creations of imagination.

To someone who has spent every weekend for 10, 20, 30 years playing that game, it is special to them. You'd see the same thing with fans of Football if it was suddenly turned into Soccer - even though those fans do not play the game, they put a lot of stock in the existence of the game itself, because it brings back their days in highschool, or tossing around the pigskin with their friends, or watching the game with their dad, or a sense of pride in their favorite team. Just like gamers, football can be something that is part of their identity.

Yes, it's a game, but games are important to people because they are escapism. You challenge someone's escapism, and they get upset.

 

[Zulgyan]

Ok, I'm sorry then. We agree.

Let's just keep with the main topic and everything friendly.

 

[Rechan]

That may be how you describe "RPGs", but that is not how Gygax described D&D in its manuals.

I mean no disrespect to the dead, but RPGs are bigger than Gygax. He gets credit for being the first but he's not the beginning and end for who gets to say what something is and isn't.

Using Gygax's words to disagree with "What D&D/RPG is" is like using Poe's words to say what horror is. Or Washington's words on what a President's is. They get points for being the first, but they're not the only authority.

You might have a point in terms of D&D, but when it comes to RPGs, sorry man. There are systems out there that literally say, "This is a story", and are built on the notion that players have the power to change the story. Not only in the agreement between GM and player, but in the mechanics. Take Donjon for instance.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There is a disconnect between Old School D&D and New School D&D, but I don't think it has anything to do with S&S vs. HF.

It was an evolution, dating back to the early days of 1E. Old school D&D was very lethal for the characters created for it, and that lethality was part of playing the game. Surviving was its own reward, as you gained experience and became more powerful. It was also a life or death struggle, and the challenge of that was fun in its own way. But then a funny thing happened. Characters who survived the early grind of old-school D&D started taking on a life of their own. People started becoming more invested in that sort of character, and found playing a living, breathing character over a long term campaign more rewarding than the hack and slash grind of dungeon crawling. As a result of this, people started trying to play that sort of game from the beginning. The game rules didn't really accomodate this, so DMs just started houseruling things and going easy on players. Games became more focused on the story and the campaign aspect, as opposed to playing the life or death challenges of the game.


This evolution was taking place during 1E, and was enshrined by the Dragonlance Saga, which told the epic story of what was essentially a campaign starring D&D characters. When 2E was published, despite generally maintaining 1E's lethal rules most of the advice on how to run and play the game pointed towards going easy on PCs and telling a story over a long term campaign. 3E furthered this trend removing a large part of the lethality of low level AD&D, and 4E finalized things by all but abandoning old school lethality.


This is all about how people played the game, and the insertion of narrativism into the D&D paradigm over time. I don't see where it has anything to do with the flavor of D&D, be it S&S or HF.

 

[Umbran]

3) Conan wins against all odds because he is a literary protagonist, no doubt. But the novels constantly stress that it's all about his own skill, resourcefulness and luck, with no intervention from a Christian-like god how wants good to win over evil. His story is a "success story" that had no guarantees of being that way - that's how the author presents the world. An uncaring, amoral universe. Conan wins because he is strong, not because he is good.

No - as you noted, Conan wins because he's the protagonist.

Sword and Sorcery fiction is, in part, characterized by being episodic, as opposed to being strongly arced. The main character really doesn't change all that much from one story to the next, other than perhaps a general rise in station.

The major thing being, nobody ever really expects there's a good chance that Conan, or Elric, or whoever, is going to die - because if he dies the story ends forever.

In that sense, contrary to your suggestions that death comes easy in Sword and Sorcery worlds, for the Protagonists, it is actually hard to come by. While the author describes it as being a harsh world, the fact of the matter is the heroes have a lot of script immunity. The protagonist always has the strength/guile/mojo/whatever needed for the job.

So, as far as I am concerned, you can model S&S fiction either with a system that has lots of random death, or one in which there isn't. Like in the fiction, the DM can present the background world as harsh, and it just happens to be that the PCs always have enough of what it takes.