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

[Zulgyan]

Well, JRR Tolkien did say:

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

J. R. R. Tolkien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Catholicism, even though God respects human liberty, good will always finally triumph over evil. In fact, evil has already been defeated by Christ on the Cross. So yes... you could read that Sauron's defeat was prophesied or mandated. Gandalf, who is in part an allegory of Jesus, even prophetisizes that "Gollum still has a role to fulfil". So he knew how the ring was going to be destroyed beforehand.

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.

Well, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are a duo. I don't think that individuality is necessarily a caracteristic of the genre. Maybe Howard wanted to stress that nobody, nobody helped Conan, that he was all by himself.

But I think that teams can also be part of the S&S genre. Individuality is no essential - it's the means by which they succeed.

 

[Zulgyan]

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.

Yes. As I have stated before, both styles, HF or S&S, taken to the extreme are unplayable. So it's all about a general orientation or principles, that can have their exceptions to keep the game playable.

EDIT: But notice how there is a general idea that in 4E the players can DEMAND that treasure prescriptions be respected and followed BTB.

 

[Badwe]

Interestingly, as a side-note to the conflicts of these two gameplay styles, it's worth noting a parallel in computer/videogames.

In the early days, the most common RPGs were "Rogue-Likes" on personal computers, where players navigated a single character through a randomly generated dungeon that got progressively harder as they descended floors. There was no promise of success, and in fact there was often no real hope of being able to accrue enough experience to descend completely into the dungeon.

Eventually, of course, as plot began to work it's way into the mix, we saw the dawn of the "Console RPG" or the "JRPG", which was very much a story on rails, with very specific progression and growth of power and an understanding that you would eventually beat the game.

Ironically, there has even been an age of harkening back to the old-school, as modern "Rogue-likes" like Etrian Odyssey have come into popularity, recreating that old-school danger.


As for the Pen&Paper world, while some may be more satisfied by the premise of S&S and how it is unfailingly impartial, the reality is that the majority of people have drifted towards HF because it lends itself better to gaming. Now, if you are looking for a simulation of sorts, a "let's see what happens when i do this" kind of vibe, you are likely to gain more satisfaction from doing things in an S&S manner, but honestly you would be hard pressed to make that genuinely work for a group of 4 or 5 PCs for more than a single day. For people who are planning on playing consistently for several hours at a time every week, HF and all of it's trappings (plot protection, balanced encounters, gradual progression of power and magic) will create a more engaging event for everyone at the table while avoiding issues such as "i'm sitting around for 3 hours because my character died" or "oops, we've been playing for 3 months, the party wiped, and now we're done".

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely see the appeal of S&S and it's "anything can happen" mentality, but just as the stories revolve around solitary characters it seems as though the experience is best left as a solitary rather than group one. In fact i'd wager that playing something like a rogue-like would be more satisfying because then the "DM" can be truly impartial. Perhaps we are all too caught up in the trappings of modern game design, but a lot of folks think a game should engage all the players at the table every session.

 

[Stoat]

Other than the Lord of the Rings, what are some examples of "High Fantasy?"

 

[Obryn]

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.

I had this same argument about 3e a few years back, and I've heard the arguments trotted back out about 4e. Automatically balanced encounters, and wealth-by-level (or treasure parcels) aren't rules to the same degree that attack rolls, damage, and armor class are. A DM can freely ignore these in both editions.

Neither is more substantive than the 1e Monster Levels, or its general advice against giving too much treasure. It's just spelled out, so a DM who veers sharply from the guidelines knows he's playing outside 3e's or 4e's default assumptions.

EDIT: But notice how there is a general idea that the players can DEMAND that treasure prescriptions be respected and followed BTB.

Demand? Never in my experience, no matter what edition we're talking about.

-O

 

[Zulgyan]

A DM can freely ignore these in both editions.

Demand? Never in my experience, no matter what edition we're talking about.

Well, if you read boards and blog often, and even the 4E rulebooks, you'll notice that many people don't think you can freely ignore those prescriptions.

What I have tried to identify is "where does that come from?". I believe it comes from people trying to make the game look more like a high fantasy novel.

 

[Zulgyan]

the reality is that the majority of people have drifted towards HF because it lends itself better to gaming.

I think this is just a matter of subjective preference. You can't say that HF is better for gaming as an objective truth.

just as the stories revolve around solitary characters it seems as though the experience is best left as a solitary rather than group one.

IMO, as I said above, individuality is not an essential characteristic of the genre.

 

[Zulgyan]

Other than the Lord of the Rings, what are some examples of "High Fantasy?"

This is quite a fair list:

List of high fantasy fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Obryn]

Well, if you read boards and blog often, and even the 4E rulebooks, you'll notice that many people don't think you can freely ignore those prescriptions.

errrmmm... I have read the 4e rulebooks. I've also read the 3e rulebooks. I've also read the 1e and 2e rulebooks. Fundamentally, 3e and 4e are pretty close to the same, and really, like I said, all it is, is a set of guidelines saying, "At this level, the game assumes this."

I mean, really, this was Complaint Numero Uno of Oldschool vs. 3e back in the day, and it seems to have come back for 4e. I think everyone who's run 3e knows that it's not a strict rule that the DM must follow. I think everyone who's run 4e knows the same for 4e. A DM can freely ignore those guidelines in both 3e and 4e and still run a perfectly good game.

Second - regarding entitled players.... Honestly, I think a sense of entitlement is alot more about the age and maturity of the players than it is the system. I know that the BX/1e mish-mash I ran in middle school had some very entitled players... Yes, they can latch onto 3e's Wealth by Level and Challenge Ratings and throw tantrums, but if those charts weren't there, they'd throw tantrums with something else.

-O

 

[Krensky]

Good stuff, thanks guys for the responses:
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.

Fundamentally wrong. Shanarra is high fantasy and has no gods of note. The D&D novels are, generally, high fantasy and have gods on both sides. The Deed of Paksinarrion has Gods on both sides and while Paks is empowered by her god Gird (she is a Paladin, after all) she wins because she endures and is rewarded afterward with healing and more work because of her faith. I stopped reading a few books in, but I don't recall any Gods in the Wheel of Time (other then the characters, that is). The defining differences between Sword and Sorcery and High Fantasy are: Seeking adventure vs having adventure thrust upon you, episodic vs serial, ambiguous morality vs good/evil, personal conflict vs world threatening and that HF is draws more from legend and typically is a form of Campbellian Bildungsroman.

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.

Genre is defined by theme, tropes, and trappings. Invented races, magic, wizards, monsters, etc all being "common place", although not necessarily to the hero, are all characteristics of HF. They are not characteristics of Sword and Sorcery.

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

Except that none of those (well, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly sort of is) are really westerns. They're samurai films with deserts and guns. Fundamentally they have more in common with Erol Flynn then

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.

And yet he wrote Greyhawk, which is High Fantasy.

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.

Elves, dwarves, magic, monsters, black and white morality... It's HF. Gritty, bloody, absurd HF sure, but it's still HF. Then again the PCs are assumed to be looking for adventure, fortune and glory. So it's S&S. But it's also HF. It's a mismash of both with Sword and Planet, classical legends, science fiction, strange Japanese toys and a pile of other stuff tossed in. D&D is it's own genre of Fantasy, which is closest to HF. No matter what the edition.

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.

As I saiud above, numerous HF stories have no Gods or have good Gods who are essentially powerless because they're opposed by bad Gods. Moorcock has good, bad, and indifferent gods. Conan has cruel, indiffernt gods, malevolent gods, and at least two good gods.

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.

It's not a poor reading, it's a mechanistic crtique. At the core, Conan survives because he made Howard money. Conana can't loose, because Howard's editors would not buy a story that had that happen, because it would anger the readers and Howard would starve. Primary characters are far more likely to die in HF then S&S.

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".

Although I don't like 4e, does not have anything of the sort.

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.

You're wrong. The game tells you how to figure out how tough an encounter will be. It recomends you make encounters within certain range so the PCs aren't blithely wading through schlubs or getting slaughtered by things outside their league, but it doesn't stop you from sticking Orcus in the last room of Keep on the Shadowfell. It then goes on to tell you what sort of treasure is appropriate so as not to break the game system. Again, outside of the RPGA you can break this all you want. Neither of these are plot control, however. Adventure! has plot control, Houses of the Blooded has plot control. 4e does not have plot control.

3) Less randomness, more predictability, that will reduce "bad surprises" that can frustrate the fulfillment of the HF premise: good will win over evil.

How does that relate? I'm pretty sure 4e has random encounter tables. It's less swingy, because in WotC is of the opinion that most people like things that way. From what I've seen in the way of house rules for 3e, rewrites of d20