Discussing Sword & Sorcery and RPGs

[TimWest]

I really like the approach of looking at things from the perspective of the PCs' needs. If they have needs, you can both threaten them and tempt them, without sending them down any specific past.
But I think this is probably where Sword & Sorcery becomes a difficult style for RPGs. Generally speaking, protagonists in Sword & Sorcery are portrayed to not really have any needs. No superiors to please, no homes to protect. And if money becomes meaningless because it will simply evaporate once you get it, there's not even a real need for that.
What do the characters need?

Isn't this where carousing rules come into play?

Or needing to exchange 'gold' for XP in order to get training in order to get better at skills?

Players / characters want to increase their odds of survival and success.

 

[Tonguez]

So ... I'm not sure you're going to get full agreement on these points. Classic (OD&D, early AD&D and B/X) D&D, for example is often considered more S&S, yet has elves, dwarves, and other "Tokien-esque" high fantasy flourishes.

It helps to start with the classic canon of S&S in terms of literature; as is well-know, this was a term coined by the giant of the field (and a foremost influence on D&D), Fritz Leiber in response to Michael Moorcock.

Here's what he said:
I feel more certain than ever that this field should be called the sword-and-sorcery story. This accurately describes the points of culture-level and supernatural element and also immediately distinguishes it from the cloak-and-sword (historical adventure) story—and (quite incidentally) from the cloak-and-dagger (international espionage) story too!

Borrowing from the wikpedia page, I think the following is helpful (my emphasis is added):
Although many have debated the finer points, the consensus characterizes it with a bias toward fast-paced, action-rich tales set in a quasi-mythical or fantastical framework. Unlike high fantasy, the stakes in sword and sorcery tend to be personal, the danger confined to the moment of telling. Settings are typically exotic, and protagonists often morally compromised.


I think a few things can be immediately recognized when discussing S&S; first, like many genres in all art forms, it can be easy to define by certain specific examples (Conan? Yes. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? Yes), and it can be easy to define by specific counter-examples (Tolkien? No, that's high fantasy!), but because the borders are so nebulous, it is very difficult when it comes to "edge cases" or works that cross boundaries. Is the Amber series sword and sorcery (morally compromised characters, but both personal and immense stakes)?Moorcock is often cited as S&S (correctly I think), but it's hardly "regular guys fightin' against the magic". And so on.

Now, when you're moving from one medium (literature) to another medium (TTRPGs) and still employing the same label, it can be more difficult. As a general rule, I think "S&S" in D&D tends to refer to:
1. No "world-shaking events." In other words, the characters aren't saving the Forgotten Realms, or the multiverse. They are adventurers, making some coin, and maybe carving out a small part of the world for themselves.

2. Moral ambiguity. No, not an excuse of murder-hoboing. More that the "good guys" aren't necessarily good, and your characters are navigating a difficult world and making tough choices (in original D&D, you are, after all, tomb robbers). One way this was expressed, however stupidly, was the idea of "muscular neutrality" in early D&D.

Those are the two most salient marks I would look for. In essence, if you are an adventure path in general, and certainly an AP to "do good and save the world" then you're aren't doing S&S.

I agree that OD&D is very S&S but I’m not sure about your “do good save the world” argument. I’d consider Masters of the Universe and John Carter of Mars to be S&S for instance and in both of those the protagonist are heroic outsiders who do good deeds to save kingdom and ultimately the world. Conan when rising through the ranks eventually becomes Captain in the Army and then of course King where he must defend his kingdom against external threats and internal plots.

For me S&S protagonist arent morally ambiguous but rather their society is - civilisation is depicted as inherently corrupt, and evil people use deception and dark powers to oppress others. A hero in S&S chooses to oppose these deceptions through direct physical action.

 

[Yora]

That's a very good point. Some protagonists are heroic, some are villainous, and others are self-absorbed thieves, but there's generally little doubt on what they are, and they don't delude themselves in seeing themselves as something else.
When Conan was a thief and when he was a pirate, he was fully aware of what he was and made no excuses. Fahfrd and Gray Mouser have no shame, and Kane never countered any claims that he was the most evil man on Earth.
That is in contrast to the anntagonists of their adventures who make excuses for their deeds by calling on duty, justice, the greater good, or even just that it's their right to take the things they want. Villains in Sword & Sorcery are dishonest, while protagonists are sincere, even when they do bad things.

The society being corrupt is also a common theme. People are often willing to take bribes, and if they do not they often can be blackmailed. Since as I supposed earlier, a big difference between protagonists and the people around them is that the protagonists are free of social ties, while everyone else is trapped by them.

I think it could be a good practice for Sword & Sorcery adventures to plan for plenty of NPCs who can be bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise made to betray their allies by the players. Which can be a great use of money. I wouldn't allow players to get rid of obstacles like that, but it can be used to create opportunities to strike directly against an enemy who is otherwise too well protected.

I don't want to track time too closely because that sounds boring.

I was thinking of "What day is it?"
Though if you have weekly or monthly upkeep, even just knowing what week or month it is would do.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree that OD&D is very S&S but I’m not sure about your “do good save the world” argument. I’d consider Masters of the Universe and John Carter of Mars to be S&S for instance and in both of those the protagonist are heroic outsiders who do good deeds to save kingdom and ultimately the world.

Erm ...

Planetary romance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hence, the issue with genre definitions pointed to above. Regardless, there tends to be a strict dividing line between genre/pulp science fiction (however fantasy-y) and genre/pulp fantasy.

Put more simply- Flash Gordon is not swords and sorcery.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Tonguez FWIW, the best definition I have come across is probably the one at Goodman Games:

Defining Sword & Sorcery|Goodman Games

goodman-games.com

It shows both that there are some defining characteristics (as we have discussed), as well as the difficulty in pigeonholing the genre, often using negative definitions (...unlike high fantasy).

Finally, I think it correctly compares it to another slippery pulp genre, noir.

 

[Yora]

I think one subtle element is that the setting is just that: it's scenery, a backdrop. The protagonists don't have much emotional attachment to the world around them, and they're definitely not there to change it. They interact with their immediate surroundings, they're not concerned with the past or the future or anything that's happening further away than the reach of their axe.

Until things go pear-shaped, at which point they look to their best interests and bug out. Loyalty to some great cause - or even to one's faithful crew of pirates - only goes so far when your neck is on the line.

For me part of it is about telling the story of characters making their way through a dangerous world. Even if they're not particularly goal oriented themselves, the nature of the environment means that 'adventure' will eventually come their way.

My advice, based a little bit on personal experience, would be to drop the GM creates an adventure and instead to focus on the PCs have their own stakes in whatever is going on. I would look for a system that gives the PCs fairly clear needs (eg a wealth/resources rating that is under constant pressure) and gives the players fairly straightforward ways to get involved and make things happen.

Most advice on Sword & Sorcery adventures and sandbox games in general is to build follow-up adventures based on what the PCs experienced and did, and where the players want to take it from there. Only trouble is that this doesn't help when you start a campaign and there's not been anything happening that you can build on.

However, there is one need that is already established before the players make characters and had some time to get a feel for them, and that's the need to stay alive. Starting the campaign with an opening adventure in which this is the only objective could probably work quite well.
One idea is that the party comes through a town that has been pretty much destroyed and the last people are packing up and leaving. The PCs can't stay in the ruins once they're fully abandoned, and continuing on towards any other place in the area will face them with the hostile creatures and NPCs that are still roaming the area. Add some neutral NPCs who are still around or are on the road ahead of the party, and it shouldn't be too hard to get a couple of situations going for the players to find their feet.
What also could be fun is to start with the party shipwrecked on an island and having to find a way off before they starve or get eaten by monsters. You could have a pirate lair somewhere on the island, or a wrecked merchant ship that needs help to get repaired and protected against monsters in the meantime.

 

[pemerton]

Most advice on Sword & Sorcery adventures and sandbox games in general is to build follow-up adventures based on what the PCs experienced and did, and where the players want to take it from there. Only trouble is that this doesn't help when you start a campaign and there's not been anything happening that you can build on.

This is where I would suggest techniques like the sort of backstory creation that is part of Burning Wheel PC building, or some sort of Kicker.

Here's how I started my S&S-ish BW campaign (that's me posting as thurgon on RPG.net): [Burning Wheel] First Burning Wheel session

 

[Ath-kethin]

Most advice on Sword & Sorcery adventures and sandbox games in general is to build follow-up adventures based on what the PCs experienced and did, and where the players want to take it from there. Only trouble is that this doesn't help when you start a campaign and there's not been anything happening that you can build on.

My solution to this one is a good Session 0. Work out why the characters are working together and why they are where they are.

For example: In one campaign, we established that the 3 PCs were brothers and that they were from the ruling family in a barbarian tribe. The oldest (who actually took the Barbarian class) was meant to inherit everything and wed the heiress of another powerful family in the tribe. The middle brother was a rogue/Poisoner, who was the tribe healer and shaman. the youngest was just a layabout.

The tribe followed Shub-Niggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young, and as part of their tradition the youngest brother was to be sacrificed. The two older bothers decided they couldn't let that happen and interrupted the ceremony part way through and then the three fled to the nearest city.

With that backstory, we established motivations for the characters, NPCs that could be interwoven into other adventures, and reasons for the youngest brother to be a GOO Warlock of the Black Goat. They had an adventure to follow up upon and endless roleplaying possibilities in the future, especially dealing with guilt over the family responsibilities each had left behind. It gave me a great canvass to work details into the adventures we played, customizing them to be more personal and immediate to the players and characters both.

It can all work, and work really well.

 

[Yora]

What was the setup for the first adventure of the campaign? How were the PCs hooked?

 

[TimWest]

However, there is one need that is already established before the players make characters and had some time to get a feel for them, and that's the need to stay alive.

I've been writing about a solo game and that's pretty much how I kicked things off.

1. I started the game when my character and a fellow NPC just survived a shipwreck. They were captives and was their chance to escape, they had to evade other survivors of the shipwreck.
2. They decided to make their way to a city that they had heard of.
3. After an adventure they reach the city but they don't have freedom to enter.
4. They meet someone who will help them in exchange for a task.
5. Something goes wrong and they are captured again.

I'm playing in a setting that is somewhat Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity in terms of technology and social structure which means that on the face of if there isn't as much personal freedom as in other settings. As I mentioned before I allow a bit more flexibility because it's a period of change. So far my character is just trying to survive and gain some level of autonomy.