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

[Ariosto]

The G modules are less significant in that regard than the D series. Space and time constraints in the latter work more to imply a sequence of events.

A critical distinction is that the game was not rigged to ensure that any particular characters would survive, much less succeed; or that the schemes of the instigating villains would have any particular outcome.

More influential, I think, was the A series. However, that (like a number of TSR modules) was designed for the peculiar requirements of tournament play. A4 was what and when it was for the sake of testing players' skill, and A3 was "rigged" to set it up in the preceding round. Considering it from a narrative perspective, some think that the opening of the final round works better as the beginning of the whole story -- giving a personal motive (revenge) for the characters to pursue the destruction of the villains.

 

[Zulgyan]

Here is Conan turned into High Fantasy, as an example that the common tropes of the genre are not what define it:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wqlqy82Snk&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Krensky]

Here is Conan turned into High Fantasy, as an example that the common tropes of the genre are not what define it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wqlqy82Snk&feature=related

A genre is defined by it's themes and conventions.

If you change the themes and conventions (the tropes) you change the genre.

 

[Zulgyan]

So what would this cartoon be then? A new genre? It certainly does not share the same theme of the Conan novels. It's themes are closer to High Fantasy, even though it does not share it's common tropes.

I think that by your definition of genre, each author is nearly a genre of it's own.

 

[Krensky]

So what would this cartoon be then? A new genre? It certainly does not share the same theme of the Conan novels. It's themes are closer to High Fantasy, even though it does not share it's common tropes.

Well, properly it's Saturday Morning TV, but ignoring that...

It's HF, but it maintains the central themes and tropes of that genre.

Conan has adventure thrust upon him and has a 'mysterious past' (the Atlantis thing), goes on an hero's journey, and defeats the Dark Lord and the Dark Power behind him. He's also morally upright, only interested in one woman, values his friends and the innocent and weak, etc.

The other characters with similarity to original Conan ones are also changed to make them more kid friendly which makes them more similar to tropes of high fantasy. The exiled prince, the rebellious noble girl, the barbarian (not Conan in this case), etc.

Good and evil are concrete concepts, Conan wins not just because of his strength and skill but because of his friends and good deeds. Common place magic and monsters. Fantastical races (There's a pheonix, a dragon, and the snake men)

Pretty standard High Fantasy stuff. It's called Conan and has the some of the trappings of Conan, but none of the central themes, conventions or tropes.

I think that by your definition of genre, each author is nearly a genre of it's own.

Many authors are genres unto themselves, but that definition isn't mine.

genre - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Particularly:

1 : a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content

Now, I did over simplify. A lot of tropes of a work can be changed without changing the genre, but doing so does change the nature of the piece, and there are central tropes that can not changed. However, changing even the most peripheral of tropes can change the genre of a piece radically.

 

[No Name]

What's important is the underlying worldview and moral system.

High Fantasy literature is based on a Christian worldview. According to Christianity, good will finally triumph over evil. God intervenes in history to carry out his plan of salvation. Even more: to many Christian denominations, evil has already been defeated by Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Sword & Sorcery literature is based on an Atheist worldview. So there is no god to take care of you. No god to be the parameter and judge of morality. No higher force of good that will finally triumph over evil. Humanity is alone. So it's all about power and survival.

I can't agree with this. It has nothing to do with morality.

People playing S&S are just playing a game. Nothing more. It's no different than playing Monopoly for example. If you roll an 8 and that makes you pay the $75 luxury tax, then tough luck. That's just what happens.

High Fantasy players are participating in creating a myth. I don't want to go into it here and now, but Joseph Campbell has written some excellent stuff on the subject.

That's the difference between the two. One is just a board game, the other is about the hero's journey.

 

[Zulgyan]

Pretty standard High Fantasy stuff. It's called Conan and has the some of the trappings of Conan, but none of the central themes, conventions or tropes.

I define genres by their central high conceptual themes, woldview, values and morals. I try to make trappings and tropes not that relevant in defining them.

That is why I think that, while old D&D had elves, dwarves, hobbits and clerics, it was still very strong on the S&S genre.

 

[Umbran]

I can't agree with this. It has nothing to do with morality.

I agree with you that it has nothing to do with morality.

That's the difference between the two. One is just a board game, the other is about the hero's journey.

I disagree with you here. Any player can be just playing a game. And any player could be working on creating a myth. While Campbell's framework is sometimes compelling, it is by no means exhaustive or definitive. There are myths that don't fit the Hero's Journey, and there are things that fit the Hero's Journey that are not myths.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I can't agree with this. It has nothing to do with morality.

People playing S&S are just playing a game. Nothing more. It's no different than playing Monopoly for example. If you roll an 8 and that makes you pay the $75 luxury tax, then tough luck. That's just what happens.

High Fantasy players are participating in creating a myth. I don't want to go into it here and now, but Joseph Campbell has written some excellent stuff on the subject.

That's the difference between the two. One is just a board game, the other is about the hero's journey.

I can't help but call this post more than a little pretentious

 

[Remathilis]

Remathilis: so we basically agree. D&D changed with the taste of the majority. And that is basically my point.

In a large sense, yes, there was a change. There are two caveats to that.

1.) The change is not necessarily "bad" or "wrong" because it does not hew close to Gygax's original concepts and influences, and

2.) Its completely possible to play OD&D as a "high fantasy" game and equally possible to play 4e as "Sword & Sorcery". Though the game may contain lesser or greater influence of one or the other (and even if the terms Zulgyan uses are incorrect, lets assume them for this discussion) the game is not devoid enough of either to make subtle shifts in rules, tone, and playstyle to emulate one or the other.

What I don't agree on: High Fantasy is synonymous (or even associated with) either "player entitlement" (and the side discussion on how "New School" or 3e/4e fosters such a notion) or it must contain an "all-knowing, all-loving deity" who actively shapes the world. (Though I'll concede HF has more to do with good vs. evil morality, once you move past Tolkien and Lewis, HF is a lot less Christian analogy and more more Campbellian hero-with-a-thousand-faces).

I also reject the notion that D&D is an inappropriate medium to "tell stories" in, but I'll leave that discussion for another time.