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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Silly chancellor. You should know by now that when it comes to personal taste and preference, there's only the speaker's way, and the wrong way.

That applies to my post as well, so you're wrong.

 

[Elphilm]

Damn, thats so much shorter than my post. And says it better, too.

So I take it that you're now done with the drive-by insults?

Hey, i´ve already wondered when an old-schooler would give Dragonlance a kick.

You're late for the party.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So I take it that you're now done with the drive-by insults?

What insult, where?

You should know by now that when it comes to personal taste and preference, there's only the speaker's way, and the wrong way.

sigged! (if you don't mind. . .)

 

[Keefe the Thief]

So I take it that you're now done with the drive-by insults?

You're late for the party.

I´ve insuled people? Where? And i´ve read nearly every "OMG Dragonlance story NO!" essay there is on the net. I know they´re out there. I´ve just counted the seconds until somebody in this thread would make the usual "incidentially, did you know that Dragonlance ruined..." reference.

Keefe: That's Dragonlance, Desert of Desolation and Ravenloft. Do you disagree that Hickman introduced a new approach?

I think he solidified something that was with D&D from the beginning, and is now used in a positive/negative antagonistic way on many old-school boards. I like when people realize that his adventures were a crossroads for D&D. I dislike when it´s implied that this approach is somehow not "natural" or "healthy" for D&D. Not saying that you did this, just saying that i knew somebody would bring the topic up.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Gah! Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

 

[Zulgyan]

Good stuff, thanks guys for the responses:

A few notes:

1) I think some are missing the point that, what defines HF vs. S&S is the underlying worldview and moral system - basically: God on the side of good vs. No God, or God takes no sides.

2) The presence of demi-humans, clerics, vancian magic or not, etc. are all secondary to that, IMO. So sword & sorcery is not necessarily about barbarians vs. evil sorcerers. That's how it is in many popular S&S novels, but it does not need to be necessarily that way. You need to look at the higher concepts and themes of the novels.

3) I agree that D&D and westerns have much in common. Specially the spaghetti-westerns of Sergio Leone: "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", "Fistful of Dollars" and "For a few dollars more". I heartily recommend those films, and their plots are very very D&Desque

4) Yes, RPGs are bigger than Gygax, agreed. But when you analyse the RPG he authored, he is a main reference for interpretation, ins't he?. What John Wick says about Houses of the Blooded will be more relevant that what Ron Edwards says about that game.

5) I think that OD&D and 1E as games that captured very close the spirit of S&S, was not that intentional on part of Gygax. Not very consciously, IMO, he captured the spirit of S&S because in his game, the fact you where good or the protagonist, made you in no way special.

6) When authors write their novels, they don't justify the survival of their protagonists solely on them being them protagonists. They introduce an additional justification, to create an illusion that they survive because of other reasons than just being the protagonist. On general terms, in HF novels it's because higher forces of good will never let evil triumph. In S&S it's because the protagonist is skillful, lucky and resourceful, not because he receives aid from above.

Saying that the only survive because they are the protagonist is a very poor reading of the novels. You have to look at the illusionary reason the author uses to justify their success. That illusion tells you a lot about the imaginary world of the author.

7) 4E is not a pure HF game. To be a pure HF game, you need a mechanic that makes good always win over evil. 4E does not have it, for good IMO. But 4E has introduced some "plot control" mechanics that make the HF premise easier to achieve, the premise being "good will win over evil".

This are:
1) Automatically Balanced encounters: the game is telling you when and what should be encountered. That's plot control right there.
2) Treasure prescriptions: the game is telling when should a magic sword be gained. That's also plot control the way I see it.
3) Less randomness, more predictability, that will reduce "bad surprises" that can frustrate the fulfillment of the HF premise: good will win over evil.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Er. . . in Eyes of the Overworld, Cugel tries to rape a woman in a fairly barbaric act of revenge. Likewise, he lies, steals, and cajoles himself back home. He may use big words, but he's far from civilized.

You beat me to the punch on that one. Quite so. Most of the characters in Vance's Cugel stories are barbarians. They're just barbarians who use words like "supererogatory" and "insensate"

You're right that Cugel is utterly amoral. He appears to rape Derwe Coreme, before selling her into slavery. When I say he's civilized I mean that he comes from civilization, in contrast with Conan the barbarian.

Cugel is verbose, Conan taciturn. Cugel commits complex frauds, Conan raids tombs. Cugel picks pockets, Conan kills. Cugel is urban, Conan is rural. Cugel keeps his clothes on, Conan is forever showing off his thews, described in loving detail by REH.

In REH's Conan stories, barbarism is superior to civilization, which is shown to be decadent and weak. In the Dying Earth tales there is no barbarism in the REH sense, everyone is civilized in this old, old Earth. Even the monsters are wordy. Barbarism the natural state of mankind? It doesn't even exist any more.

 

[Zulgyan]

I want to encapsulate the thesis of my article as briefly as possible:

A lot of the changes in D&D during the course of it's history can be explained by the conflict between two fantasy genres that are based on diametrically opposed world-views: High Fantasy vs. Sword & Sorcery.

The game started strong on the Sword & Sorcery genre, but slowly, as a majority fans wanted to play the game in a fashion closer to High Fantasy, elements of plot protection slowly made their way into the game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

6) When authors write their novels, they don't justify the survival of their protagonists solely on them being them protagonists. They introduce an additional justification, to create an illusion that they survive because of other reasons than just being the protagonist. On general terms, in HF novels it's because higher forces of good will never let evil triumph. In S&S it's because the protagonist is skillful, lucky and resourceful, not because he receives aid from above.

Saying that the only survive because they are the protagonist is a very poor reading of the novels. You have to look at the illusionary reason the author uses to justify their success. That illusion tells you a lot about the imaginary world of the author.

I think you're applying different standards to S&S and HF. If you focus on the illusion in S&S, rather than that it's a story where we know the hero must win, then we must apply the same standard to HF. We must look at the illusion.

In LotR, is it necessary that the heroes win, or is it contingent? I would say it was contingent. Despite the help of the angel Gandalf, mortal beings had to do the right thing. Sauron's defeat wasn't, afaicr, prophesied and mandated. If it was, the story would've been rather dull.

You are right though that Conan's independence is particularly noticeable. He usually wins all by himself. When he gets help from Valeria, or in the first story, Phoenix on the Sword, from a wizard, those are notable exceptions. One could argue that makes the team-oriented LotR a better model for D&D, whether old or new school.

 

[Doug McCrae]

1) Automatically Balanced encounters: the game is telling you when and what should be encountered. That's plot control right there.
2) Treasure prescriptions: the game is telling when should a magic sword be gained. That's also plot control the way I see it.

In the 1e DMG Gary warns against both Monty Haul-ism - ie giving out too much treasure and magic items - and Killer DMing - making the monsters too powerful, the traps too deadly, etc. Isn't that the same concern as the one expressed in 4e?

The recommended style of play - challenging but balanced - is actually the exact same in 1e and 4e. It's just 4e gives the DM clearer advice on how to achieve it.