• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D: High Fantasy vs. Sword & Sorcery

Which subgenre would you prefer to see ascendent in D&D if you had to choose?


Kunimatyu

First Post
Many of my games end up being High Fantasy, but I'm a fan of Sword and Sorcery through and through. My next game will be S&S, though I'm sure we'll hit a big world-changing event or two(but even Conan had those -- doesn't becoming ruler of a huge nation count as world-changing?).

And with that nifty E6 variant in the House Rules forum, I may be able to actually play D&D3.5 as S&S without, as another poster put it, "houseruling D&D to within an inch of its life".

EDIT: Woot! 1000+ posts! :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ivocaliban

First Post
This was a very difficult question for me to answer. Looking back over the last fifteen or so odd years I realize that pretty much all of my games were essentially High Fantasy. High Fantasy seems to provide for epic storytelling and for roleplaying (in its more literal form), while I think of Sword-and-Sorcery is more adapted to hack-and-slash and dungeon crawling adventures. I'm not sure that this is an entirely fair generalization, but it is one I have difficulty dismissing altogether.

I've always favored the acting, character development and storytelling elements of gaming over the technical aspects such as combat. In the past I have believed, perhaps falsely, that High Fantasy offers me more opportunity to focus on story and internal character development as opposed to combat and external character development.

In short, I associated High Fantasy with campaigns and Sword-and-Sorcery with adventures. As I'm horrible at running one-shot adventures (if I was a director I'd spend a fortune on film and need an amazing editor), but fairly good at orchestrating complex, multi-layered campaigns...my choice was already made for me.

However, in the last few years I've been trying desperately to rethink how I look at Sword-and-Sorcery. I've always enjoyed reading Howard and Leiber and find them more thrilling entertainment than Tolkien, but of course I recognize and admire the depth and breadth of Tolkien's world-building. I would prefer to have more Sword-and-Sorcery as long as that didn't necessarily mean it would dissolve into mindless dice-rolling and dungeon-crawling. I'd like to be better at Sword-and-Sorcery style DMing, mostly, but it's just not something I seem wired for.
 
Last edited:

Doug McCrae

Legend
ivocaliban said:
I'd like to be better at Sword-and-Sorcery style DMing, mostly, but it's just not something I seem wired for.
I'm wired for Sword & Sorcery but I'm trying to be better at running campaigns.

Excellent point about classic sword & sorcery tales such as Conan and Fafrd and the Gray Mouser being a lot shorter than stuff like LotR. That said you couldn't say that Conan has less character than Frodo, he's one of the best realised characters in fantasy fiction though I personally do not care for him.
 

Korgoth

First Post
I like to read both styles in books, though most of all I enjoy the high fantasy of Tolkien.

But to me, D&D is meant for Swords & Sorcery. HF to me is about a storybook approach, an epic feel and characters who become world-saving heroes. S&S is about mercenary adventurers who follow their occupation because they are socially irresponsible, misfits, or too proud to get a regular job.

In Tolkien, Samwise would rather be gardening, Aragorn would rather be ruling, Legolas would rather be having a picnic, Frodo would rather things went back to normal, etc. "Adventures" are overrated and bothersome to these people... they go on them because they're the good guys who step up and do what is right even when it is painful.

Contrast to Conan. Would he rather give up his cycle of defying death to gain a fabulous treasure that he immediately blows on chicks and lotus and get a day job? Nope. He only becomes a king later in life when he's slowing down a bit, and the opportunity presents itself. And it's not like being a king is really having a job anyway. No, Conan is gifted, but he's not a model citizen.

I think D&D is designed for S&S because of the original XP mechanic: you get XP for finding gold. Why do you get XP for finding gold? Because that's your job. That's what you do for a living instead of being a peasant. You rob tombs and justify it by noting that since the inhabitants were all undead, they were probably jerks in the first place. You're an "adventurer"... that means that instead of working for a living, you scavenge wealth from the forgotten places, places men with less backbone and more work ethic prudently avoid.

The XP-for-gold mechanic wasn't a mistake, an oversight or lazy design. It was a clear signal as to what the game was about: getting loot and eventually carving out a place for yourself among the mighty (i.e. hitting Name level and building a stronghold).

That's the "story" of D&D: a bunch of self-serving adventurers mount an expedition (like an old-time archaeo-treasure-swiping expedition) to the lost city/cavern/whatever to plunder it of whatever cool old stuff it has; these mercenaries will brave its many dangers in hopes of gaining wealth and power. Monsters? If there are any, hopefully we can avoid/evade/trick/blitzkrieg them before they can threaten us. Or maybe they can eat our porters while we high-tail it out of the lair. Saves us having to pay them when we get back to civilization.

That's not to say that I think people shouldn't be allowed to play HF with D&D. Only that I think that S&S should be the core style of D&D, because I think it was originally intended to be so.
 

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
No matter how many elves, dwarves, and draconians you throw into it, the heart of the game is going to exotic locations, killing the natives, and taking their stuff. And that would be Swords and Sorcery.
 

Xyxox

Hero
TerraDave said:
No matter how many elves, dwarves, and draconians you throw into it, the heart of the game is going to exotic locations, killing the natives, and taking their stuff. And that would be Swords and Sorcery.

Absolutely, Gygax himself says there is more of Conan in what he created than of anything else, and there is no Tolkien at all according to him.

Of course, teh game evolved beyond Gygax and can be either or both if you so choose.
 

Arnwyn

First Post
Hmmm.... After reading the Wikis, I think I've discovered that I like reading high fantasy (eg. Tolkien), but prefer playing sword & sorcery.

So I guess the Sword & Sorcery vote it is.
 


Emirikol

Adventurer
I much prefer a sword and sorcery aspect in our games. There's soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much magic in D&D nowadays, it's just overbearing. DMing just isn't fun becasue everything and everyone is so dependent on magic by 5th level and epic practically starts at 10th.

If they could make more non-magical classes and more non-magical aspects of the game superior to magic items and spells, I'd be a happy camper :)

Jay Hafner
Lakewood, CO
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top