Search results

Guys, when I made the list, it was to give proof that AD&D was strong S&S, not to say that 3E or 4E was not. The guy I quoted asked me for something, and I answered. Again, I never said that 3E or 4E was pure HF. I say that many people want D&D -any edition- to work more like HF game. This...

I will repeat what I said before: 1) I never said OD&D or AD&D were 100% sword & sorcery. They just leaned more strongly towards it, than today's D&D. 2) Many of the stuff you mention are just trappings and cosmetics. 3) Also, you are falling in the "Howard is the only S&S" mentality. S&S...

PLEASE quote where I said that, and I will ask for pardon.

I did some analysis of the game itself on the OP. Ok, I'll expand. In AD&D by EGG: 1) Being good or evil is just the same for survival, progression and success. Being good or even beign the protagonist, grants you no special consideration. You are all by yourself. The system or the DM does not...

I can agree with this list, and that the whole beautiful mess makes D&D unique. But so Hyboria is unique. And Newton is unique. But they all have some deep similarities in their higher concepts, worldviews, etc. that you can group them all under a man-made label called S&S, that has quite an...

If you read my post all along this thread, I never say that any edition is pure S&S or pure HF. Some lean more towards one of the genres, but none of them are 100% of them. I also say in my OP, that 3E tried to get back to it's original S&S roots. On elves, I would also like to add: There...

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. They only thing you got to do is get the AD&D...

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...

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.

Well... most is one me, you are right. But some statements and arguments need backing. If you say D&D is a totally unique genre, then back it up. And saying that what I say is totally unsupported is very unfair. Because it isn't. A little research about the history of early D&D and EGG...

Well... then, under your parameters, I can consider you haven't proved me wrong either... :p And saying that D&D of the 70s, is the same D&D of today... hmmm... try to prove and support THAT.

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

So what characterizes and defines the D&D genre, if it is so unique?

Krensky wrote: So here you accept that the common tropes are not really what define the genre??

Why "D&D should also provide myth creation"? There are lots of other games out there better suited.

Yes, D&D had influences from almost any kind of source. But, in the D&D version published in 1974, the underlying worldview and morals of the world that the rules present, shares a lot with the S&S genre.

What about the novels of Jack Vance?? He's protagonists are spell casters. Also, keep in mind that Conan himself (in "Beyond the Black River") uses a bit of sorcery. The Gray Mouser was a mage apprentice at the beggining of the series too. And uses some magic in the course of his adventures.

We should take into account that many HF authors are Tolkien imitators. They may have "watered down" the Catholic influence on their novels, but the most basic premises are still there, maybe weakened, but still there.

You deny ANY kind of influence of the literary genres on the game??

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