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

[Zulgyan]

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

I never made a bad, wrong, good type of statement in the whole discussion. So we agree.

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

We also agree on this.

 

[LostSoul]

To my mind, a design that integrates the "narrative control" concept as part of the game is better than one that subverts the game. When a "good game" requires breaking the rules, I think it's time to change the rules.

What are you thinking of when you say "narrative control"?

In any case, "story first" and "role-playing with emergent story" are rather at odds with each other. I think that is the real underlying reason for conflict and change in D&D.

Yup. I think all the genre talk is misplaced; it's about player priorities - and those are bigger than genre.

 

[Zulgyan]

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).

Do you think that it would be better if I replace "God" with "A cosmological force of good" in my terminology?

 

[Remathilis]

Do you think that it would be better if I replace "God" with "A cosmological force of good" in my terminology?

I think the necessity of a Absolute Good and Absolute Evil is a defining feature, even if there is no "higher power" that controls/creates it. That said, your second definition opens up a lot more options (such as Star Wars' the Force) than your original premise.

 

[Ariosto]

What are you thinking of when you say "narrative control"?

What came first to mind was some GM advice in the Legend of the Five Rings game. The designer gave an example of a player choosing to try to kill an important NPC. The advice was to roll dice and pretend to apply the rules, but in fact to make sure the attempt fails so as not to "spoil the fun". As I recall, it was pretty clear that the player was having fun while he thought he had succeeded! The designer got really topsy-turvy, claiming simultaneously that "it's cheating" and "it's not".

 

[M.L. Martin]

Do you think that it would be better if I replace "God" with "A cosmological force of good" in my terminology?

I think the distinction between "an ordered, moral and providential universe" and "a chaotic, amoral and uncaring or hostile universe" gets closer to the roots of the matter, myself.

 

[No Name]

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.

Absolutely. I don't think I made myself that clear though (nor was I trying to be pretentious).

The S&S gaming style, the way the original post described it, plays like an impartial board game. It doesn't lend itself to myth creation very well. A player can easily have character death due to some random chart roll.

HF characters are meant to face trials and tribulations, but ultimately succeed (or die a hero's death). Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Campbell, but he pops into mind sometimes when I think about modern D&D.

While any player could be working on creating a myth, if the DM is running a S&S style game, that player will have a tough time of it.

Umbrar (eaten by dragon)
Umbrak (green slimed)
Umbrav (shot by lucky goblin)
Umbran of EN World, Hero of the Realm


I jest.

 

[Woas]

I don't know how off topic this is, but it came to me while reading these 9 pages so somehow to me it seems relevant. If you deem it forkable we can follow it there. But anyway...

I haven't read all the famous Sword & Sorcery stories. But I've read a bunch and one common trope with S&S which I think might come more from an escapism literature base is that of tantalizing sexuality.
I realize we've all just got done debating Sexism in D&D on another post but I wonder, has any game with clear S&S 'roots' past or present somehow found a way to add that 'reward' sociably and purposefully into a shared game?

 

[Ariosto]

In that L5R example and similar cases, the question that seems obvious to me is why is the dishonesty necessary?

A simple rule could be agreed upon: A PC cannot die without the player's consent, nor an NPC without the GM's. The reciprocity is not necessary, but I like it. The point is simply for everyone to agree on the game being played. It's not necessary to lie about abiding by the rules!

If we are not willing to accept the outcomes of algorithms, then why pile them up into a complex structure? Why not turn instead to rules directed at producing the range of results we do want? D&D was originally designed to produce results that can easily overturn any preconceived story. The companions who are "supposed" to end up slaying the Dark Lord can instead fall in a fight with his lowly minions in the first chapter!

The more specific rules get "fudged", the less they really are rules. It's a slippery slope from playing a game to sitting down for the GM's story hour. When I go to watch a movie, I don't expect footage of the director rolling dice before each scene. That would be just a distraction from the story. Likewise, I don't want to spend hours making irrelevant decisions and dice rolls in an illusion of a game. If it's billed as a game, then I want to play for real.

This is quite another matter from the old-style referee's adjudication. When I DM OD&D, I toss dice in plain sight of the players in every case except when it really would give information they should not have -- but then it remains information for me nonetheless. I don't save any figure arbitrarily, because then its demise would also be by my choice (as I chose not to "fudge" that one time). When I make a ruling, there is likewise no need to keep the reasoning secret other than that the players have not yet discovered the reason for themselves. Barring that, we often consider situations together and come to a consensus on how to treat them. Reasonable people can disagree -- but we can also agree to an extent that might surprise some of the rules-lawyer persuasion.

It is quite possible to have a story game in which the final outcome is not in doubt, in the minds of any of the participants. The meaningful questions to be answered then have to do with the particular route between the story's beginning and end. What happens along the way? Surely there is a field of more and less desirable collateral results, and the game's challenge lies in finding a better rather than worse path through that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

In that L5R example and similar cases, the question that seems obvious to me is why is the dishonesty necessary?

A simple rule could be agreed upon: A PC cannot die without the player's consent, nor an NPC without the GM's. The reciprocity is not necessary, but I like it. The point is simply for everyone to agree on the game being played. It's not necessary to lie about abiding by the rules!

If we are not willing to accept the outcomes of algorithms, then why pile them up into a complex structure? Why not turn instead to rules directed at producing the range of results we do want? D&D was originally designed to produce results that can easily overturn any preconceived story. The companions who are "supposed" to end up slaying the Dark Lord can instead fall in a fight with his lowly minions in the first chapter!

The more specific rules get "fudged", the less they really are rules. It's a slippery slope from playing a game to sitting down for the GM's story hour. When I go to watch a movie, I don't except footage of the director rolling dice before each scene. That would be just a distraction from the story. Likewise, I don't want to spend hours making irrelevant decisions and dice rolls in an illusion of a game. If it's billed as a game, then I want to play for real.

This is quite another matter from the old-style referee's adjudication. When I DM OD&D, I toss dice in plain sight of the players in every case except when it really would give information they should not have -- but then it remains information for me nonetheless. I don't save any figure arbitrarily, because then its demise would also be by my choice (as I chose not to "fudge" that one time). When I make a ruling, there is likewise no need to keep the reasoning secret other than that the players have not yet discovered the reason for themselves. Barring that, we often consider situations together and come to a consensus on how to treat them. Reasonable people can disagree -- but we can also agree to an extent that might surprise some of the rules-lawyer persuasion.

It is quite possible to have a story game in which the final outcome is not in doubt, in the minds of any of the participants. The meaningful questions to be answered then have to do with the particular route between the story's beginning and end. What happens along the way? Surely there is a field of more and less desirable collateral results, and the game's challenge lies in finding a better rather than worse path through that.

My answer to this is that death isn't necessary to achieve challenge and suspense. The threat of death is enough. I'm running 4E right now, and I find that close brushes with death are a fairly common occurrence, and enough to keep everyone scared. I was inches away from killing our Druid with an Assassin Imp who was more interested in killing a helpless dying enemy than helping his friends this past sunday. Add to this that I've TPK'ed the party twice in a year of gaming, and death isn't far away from my players' minds.