D&D: High Fantasy vs. Sword & Sorcery

[jdrakeh]

I voted High Fantasy because D&D would have to be transformed into a fundamentally different game otherwise.

That was my point earlier. If you took all of the High Fantasy tropes (e.g., Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Dragons, proliferation of easily accessible magic, escalating character power, monsters as common animals, etc) out of D&D you'd be left with a great S&S game -- that doesn't resemble D&D in any of its incarnations.

 

[Lanefan]

Despite the definitions, I just treat them as different terms for essentially the same thing...fantasy involving magic...which D+D does well.

Lanefan

 

[briezee]

I don't really view them as independent when applied to a DnD campaign. When I run a long term campaign it usually starts out closer to the provided definition of Sword & Sorcery but ends up looking a whole lot more like High Fantasy at higher levels.

This is exactly where I tend to fall. Voted S&S since I spend the most time at the lower levels.

 

[Gentlegamer]

That was my point earlier. If you took all of the High Fantasy tropes (e.g., Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Dragons, proliferation of easily accessible magic, escalating character power, monsters as common animals, etc) out of D&D you'd be left with a great S&S game -- that doesn't resemble D&D in any of its incarnations.

It would, however, resemble the description in the original forward to the 1974 boxed set.

 

[Starglim]

Are Tolkein and Lewis really high fantasy? Anyhow, I suspect this is a case where the majority of fans will say one thing, but do another.

 

[Desdichado]

Are Tolkein and Lewis really high fantasy? Anyhow, I suspect this is a case where the majority of fans will say one thing, but do another.

Uh... yeah? Of course. By definition, in fact. They wrote the books the defined high fantasy.

 

[jdrakeh]

It would, however, resemble the description in the original forward to the 1974 boxed set.

True -- though not even the 1974 boxed rules resembled much of said foreward (I do actually own a 1974 box set). That being the case, I'm not certain that radically altering the game to embody something that it never has would be an accomplishment to crow about. I think it would likely alienate the vast majority of the game's fanbase, rather than revitalize the game or the industry. It would be akin to jettisoning The Force and Jedi from Star Wars. Some people may like this idea. The vast majority would never give George Lucas another dime.

 

[marune]

High Fantasy all the way.

 

[pemerton]

That is the D&D experience to me in a nutshell. When we come down to brass tacks, being an adventurer is about murder for profit, and a cynical, materialistic outlook.

<snip>

What D&D has is a sort of compromise, so you are getting more wealthy and powerful by killing sentients beings and robbing them of their valuables, but it is okay because they were bad people and you were doing the right thing.

<snip>

To me, and this is entirely subjective, a stronger S&S vibe feels more honest than "D&D fantasy", which has all the outwards trappings of high fantasy - idyllic rural communities, noble heroes, benevolent monarchs and heroic quests - while it ignores its message. But then I also prefer the imagery, the structure of the stories, the mosaic-like worldbuilding, and all that jazz.

QFT.

I agree with all those who have said that D&D tends towardss sword-and-sorcery plot/action, but with many high-fantasy tropes. And I voted S&S, because I feel that high fantasy tends to vest too much power in the GM at the expense of the players - it is the GM who determines the themes and the overall direction of the plot.

I don't think that S&S excludes world-saving plots or wolrd-shaking action. For example, Conan stopped Nathok's invasion in Black Colossus, and (as others pointed out) became King of Aquilonia. In many games which are being described as low-level S&S but high-level HF, I think that the transition is often really to this more world-shattering S&S.

As the Wikipedia entry on Low Fantasy suggests, the difference betwee S&S of world-shattering scopm and HF, is that of moral motivation. And (as Melan points out in the quote above) PCs in D&D tend to be motivated by mercenary considerations, not moral ones. Even when a PC, like a Paladin, is morally motivated, a High Fantasy approach tends to put control in the hands of the GM - and thus the GM will wield alignment sanctions as a weapon to keep the PC on track - whereas a Sword and Sorcery approach puts control in the hands of the player, who can (for example) choose to fail the test of morality and allow evil to triumph (or at least insist on material rewards for defeating it).

The changes in alignment in 3rd Ed, from a straight-jacket to a descriptor, actually facilitate S&S play, although the default assumption in most published campaign and adventure material that PCs are Good undoes much of this good work.

 

[howandwhy99]

Sword and Sorcery levels 1-10, High Fantasy 11-20