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

[thecasualoblivion]

Saying that D&D is a melting pot of different influences(two of which are "HF" and "S&S" mixed into a stew isn't a stretch. I would assert that the 1E AD&D PHB/DMG/MM themselves are proof enough of this(I'm not really familiar with the original pamphlets).

I'd also say that the "HF" vs "S&S" had little effect on the changing game mechanics of D&D. For the changes to D&D during my gamer existence, I would postulate:

1. AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E--Biggest change was the emphasis on "Story First" and Hickman style campaigns

2. AD&D 2E to D&D 3E--Biggest changes was the empowerment of players, making character creation and progression the centerpiece of the game, and the attempt via the toolbox approach and the D20/OGL to make D&D a universal system

3. D&D 3E to D&D 4E--Streamlining the game to focus on what it does best, and throw the rest to the curb.

 

[Zulgyan]

I can agree with that.

But when D&D became more "Story First", the type of story they where trying to make, was a HF one: Dragonlance.

 

[Ariosto]

To many people, a game in which tropes of the original game have been undermined or even inverted can "feel like D&D" because enough trappings of its eclectic and sometimes eccentric brand of fantasy are retained. There's a sense in which it is a "world" of its own. Look, for instance, at the "properties" WotC never made Open Content. Some of those may be shameless ripoffs of things created elsewhere, yet they have come to be clearly associated with the D&D brand.

Look again at the countless "fantasy heart-breakers" produced with an obviously D&D-derived mix of fantasy elements as the default. One after another has featured the quasi-Tolkien races, similar character types (often down to sharing the class names and essentially duplicating most of their abilities and limitations), the same takes on monsters (rather than going back to the sources), sometimes even spells and magic items derived from D&D prototypes.

People whose fantasy creation started prior to, and developed independently of, D&D produced notably different imagined worlds. Take Greg Stafford's Glorantha, for instance; his Elves and Dwarfs and Trolls have a character all their own. M.A.R. Barker's Tékumel retained its exotic quality even when translated into game mechanics spun off directly from D&D for TSR's second RPG.

 

[Zulgyan]

The way elves are presented in D&D is very sword & sorcerish. They are in deep dirty dungeons scavenging gold and wandering around human towns looking for mercenary type jobs. The cast on you a fireball, a tasha's hideous uncontrollable laughter, and they protect themselves with mirror image and a fly spell. They are very different from HF elves.

 

[catsclaw227]

The way elves are presented in D&D is very sword & sorcerish. They are in deep dirty dungeons scavenging gold and wandering around human towns looking for mercenary type jobs. The cast on you a fireball, a tasha's hideous uncontrollable laughter, and they protect themselves with mirror image and a fly spell. They are very different from HF elves.

You just described 3.x elves too. Doesn't that contradict your assertion that modern D&D is HF and not S&S?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Zulgyan, the main problem you've had in this thread and the one you haven't proven or successfully argued is that there is a connection between "S&S" and the old school D&D style, defined as high body count, sandbox dungeon crawling, and emergent storyline and roleplaying, and on the reverse "HF" and later D&D's story first, PCs have some level of plot immunity, Hickman styled epic campaign arcs/adventure paths.

 

[Desdichado]

And that is precisely the time in which the shift slowly began.

I think I was unclear, though... my point was that that was the baggage I brought to the gaming table, not something that the game itself inculcated in me. Plus, it's the exact opposite as what you posit. I found that AD&D and BD&D worked reasonably well for High Fantasy (my disatisfaction with the game back then wasn't genre emulation, anyhow) and I find now that 3.5 works really well for a more S&S themed game. You're trying to tell me that I should have gotten the exact opposite result. I haven't.

Of course, as has been hashed out multiple times by now, that's largely because your criteria of what is S&S doesn't actually have much to do with actual S&S, but I'm not sure I want to get too deeply into that at this point, given the already prodigious length of the thread.

 

[Krensky]

The way elves are presented in D&D is very sword & sorcerish. They are in deep dirty dungeons scavenging gold and wandering around human towns looking for mercenary type jobs. The cast on you a fireball, a tasha's hideous uncontrollable laughter, and they protect themselves with mirror image and a fly spell. They are very different from HF elves.

Because they're not elves, they're humans in funny makeup.

 

[Mallus]

Zul, how would you classify my campaign?

It's 4e, the default assumption is that characters will gain levels and won't die (as you would say, there's player entitlement), but there is no overarching story, no Manichean battle between good and evil, almost everything is driven by the players, the setting is completely amoral, as are the PC's. And, while God certainly exists in the campaign setting, he is, in fact, dead, His skeletal corpse lying in a faraway lake in a land that's actually the inside of His gradually decaying mind.

Zul, the trouble with your analysis is it's too neat. Things don't map so easily between the literature and the game(s) it inspires. For example, a lot of players I know prefer low PC mortality. That has nothing to do with preferring epic campaigns of Good vs. Evil where Good ultimately can't fail (your a default Christian worldview). It has nothing to do with any of the characteristics of literary High Fantasy. They simply enjoy playing the same characters over a long period of time.

I think you're over-thinking a lot of this.

 

[Zulgyan]

old school D&D style, defined as high body count, sandbox dungeon crawling,

I don't agree on high body count, and dungeon crawling - you can see in my blog that my campaign is mostly city and wilderness adventuring - Wilderlands of High Fantasy style.

And as long as players play well and are lucky enough, they won't die.

Zulgyan, the main problem you've had in this thread and the one you haven't proven or successfully argued is that there is a connection between "S&S" and the old school D&D style

They only thing you got to do is get the AD&D DMG and check out the inspirational reading list. Check out the early Dragon Magazines, what kind of literature is discussed there, and the dozen of EGG articles saying that D&D is NOT TOLKIEN.

You can read the Q&A threads of EGG here at ENWorld, when he speaks about the main inspirations for the game, how it was much more rooted in S&S rather than HF, how he called Tolkien's masterpiece "The Bore of the Rings", how he said hundred of times the Tolkien races where there just to make the game sell better.

I thought this was much more common knowledge that what I supposed.