D&D: High Fantasy vs. Sword & Sorcery

[Tonguez]

I'd love it be S&S (which I voted)

but DnD does High Fantasy better

 

[BryonD]

I'd love it be S&S (which I voted)

but DnD does High Fantasy better

Which is why I voted High Fantasy. It plays to D&D's strengths.

I rather prefer S&S. Not overwhelmingly, but certainly.
But I'd want D&D to be the best it can. I'd rather have an awesome HF D&D and some other S&S game than a decent S&S D&D.

(I agree about its roots being highly S&S, but the game still is what it is.)

 

[Darkwolf445]

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

I 100% agree with you here.
Just can't find anything that does good S&S that my players will like.

 

[Gothmog]

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

I in complete agreement Emirikol. I love S&S, while High Fantasy never has done a lot for me. Tolkein did it well, but really nobody else has. We prefer heroes that have the capabilities of skilled mortals, who fear a knife in the dark and black magic, and a monster isn't something to look forward to meeting so you can kill it, but something to be feared. The levels of magic in D&D have gotten to the absurd level, the power levels of characters have gotten really wonky- and for me and the kind of games I like to play and DM, D&D doesn't cut it.

My players and I have found that WHFRP2 and Savage Worlds do a great job at capturing a more S&S feel, have as much customiziability as D20, and are a lot simpler to prepare- so we've switched to those games.

 

[jonathan swift]

We prefer heroes that have the capabilities of skilled mortals, who fear a knife in the dark and black magic, and a monster isn't something to look forward to meeting so you can kill it, but something to be feared.

See, to me, those are things that don't apply along the high fantasy/sword and sorcery schism. You have Lord of the Rings where orcs and trolls are hugely feared. And then you have Conan who fears nothing.

 

[Darkwolf445]

See, to me, those are things that don't apply along the high fantasy/sword and sorcery schism. You have Lord of the Rings where orcs and trolls are hugely feared. And then you have Conan who fears nothing.

This is not quit true, at least in reference to original Conan. Sorcery, demonic entities, and the like were fearful (Specifically in the Scarlet Citadel).

Just my further 2 cents.

 

[Brazeku]

That is one of the most significant differences. The role and scope of the supernatural usually is different too, since S&S often has much more of a swashbuckling Arabian nights feel to it. That means that the supernatural is usually an exotic foe to be overcome rather than necessarily a tool to be used, as High Fantasy usually paints it.

Also, humano-centric vs. a selection of humanoid races with pseudo-mythological origins is a useful marker. Although plenty of high fantasy stories are humano-centric too.

Ah, thanks. I guess I made the proper decision, I can safely say that I like High Fantasy (as I like all epic conflicts, the zany races, and high, high HIGH magic), although there is something to be said for the mercenary/dungeon raiding/troubleshooting approach.

I don't know, though, I generally don't try and keep it so serious or run it like Tolkien, so maybe running High Fantasy plots with a Sword and Sorcery type lightheartedness is what I aim for.

 

[Aeric]

I chose Sword and Sorcery simply because D&D seems better suited for it than High Fantasy. This is not to say that High Fantasy can't be done with D&D; in fact, most of the campaigns I've played in fall into that category. But for short-term, fun-packed games, I think Sword and Sorcery is the way to go.

 

[stonehill_troll]

S&S, brutal Conan style flavor (definitely medieval), magic is still both wonderful and scary for the common folk.

 

[M.L. Martin]

D&D suffers from Tolkien the same way physics suffers from Einstein.

Does physics borrow a handful of trappings from Einstein and utterly miss the real point of his work?

D&D uses Tolkienian/'High Fantasy' trappings in key points, but the heart of the game (aside from some attempts at moving in a more HF direction during Second Edition) is S&S--"kill things and take their stuff", or, as I've put it in my more snarky moods, playing characters who "plunder, pillage, rob, burgle, slaughter, backstab, lie, cheat, steal, betray, and then call up a demon lord to chat with over a glass of innocent blood".

I prefer the genre breakdown from Fantasy Hero, 5th Edition: Epic Fantasy (Tolkien--high wonder, low magic), High Fantasy (D&D in its FR or DL mode--high wonder, high magic), Low Fantasy (low wonder, low magic) and Sword & Sorcery (which is described above--Howard, Leiber, and Moorcock, among others--and which edges towards the "low wonder, high magic" corner of the square in spots). (There's also Crossworlds and Urban Fantasy, but those aren't really relevant to a D&D discussion.)

In this model, D&D lies on the borderland between High Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery. My own tastes tend towards Epic Fantasy and High Fantasy, which is probably why I've often been less than enchanted by 'standard' D&D.