Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
DM - Adversarial or Permissive?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5837078" data-attributes="member: 2205"><p>Clearly.</p><p></p><p>My previous post referenced fantasy overall. Obliquely.</p><p></p><p>No it doesn't. You brought up old-fashioned sword & sorcery stories, not me. They don't have any relevence to my original post, and the only relevance they have now is that I'm answering you on them now.</p><p></p><p>With the popularity of Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Earthsea and others, publishers were looking for something that they could market as vaguely similar, and do so with a minimum of fuss, time and effort. Reprinting Howard, Moorcock and others fit that bill. But that wasn't the area of growth for the market. That mode was still on the wane, and high fantasy was what new stuff was.</p><p></p><p>Ironically (or maybe not) even the new Conan novels that came out starting in the 70s or 80s, which had little of the feel of the older Conan material.</p><p></p><p>Your perception of the state of the market at that time is fundamentally not consistent with mine. Short of some kind of industry reports or industry "expert testimony" we'll probably have to agree to disagree.</p><p></p><p>Calling that a "small number of homages" rather than a "fairly thorough placement of D&D squarely in the market to appeal to Tolkien fans" strikes me as either wishful or revistionist thinking.</p><p></p><p>And keep in mind here; I'm not talking about Gygax himself and what he wanted. I'm talking about the first generation of the RPG player base. Granted, there's no way to talk about that in a way that's not anecdotal, because to my knowledge there's no real data about their preferences or preferred playstyles much, other than that there clearly was plenty of pent-up demand for material that catered more overtly to a high fantasy rather than a sword & sorcery approach, given the popularity and rapid spread of material that more overtly did so.</p><p></p><p>The game itself doesn't seem to favor one or the other at all in any way whatsoever, except by the mode of advancement via treasure and XP. And if you think that's a fundamental core feature of the game and the overt Tolkienisms are just a "small part" of the game, I'm gonna be forced to give you the "WTF?" face here--it would seem like you're trying to have it both ways and exempt stuff that doesn't fit your paradigm while simultaneously holding out small elements as indicative of what you want to demonstrate that the game was all about.</p><p></p><p>Actually, if you wanted to look for some evidence of where the original mode of the game was, I think you'd be better off looking at some of the earlier modules. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find proof in there that rogues and ne'er-do-wells were the exception rather than heroes. I could be wrong there, though--I didn't play (or read) a lot of the modules back in the day.</p><p></p><p>It seems to you. Key phrase there. Nothing about my position is any less or more "proveable" than yours.</p><p></p><p>And the fact that it's "OSR Approved" to play more rogueishly rather than heroically doesn't really prove anything one way or another. I was playing D&D during the same time frame that the OSR is trying to emulate, and I can certainly say for a fact that the games I knew were more heroic, and that was the paradigm of all the gamers I knew, who came into gaming after reading Tolkien, Lewis and Alexander. Plus, I'm also familiar enough with the OSR to know that your characterization of it as having a unified playstyle that it identifies with is completely false. The OSR is as eclectic and varied as the actual old-school gaming situation was in the late seventies and early eighties, the dogmatic approach of a few very vocal bloggers notwithstanding.</p><p></p><p>Well, two things: you're clearly in the Malizsewski camp (especially since you keep linking to his posts as if that proves something) that believes that the game was a sword and sorcery game with a high fantasy patina or gloss. That's debateable, but I won't argue that there isn't a valid reason or two to characterize the game that way. I don't agree with it, but I think it's a clearly valid opinion to have based on some elements of the game, and 2) I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GAME, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PLAYERS. I don't know how to more strongly <em><strong>re</strong></em>iterate that point. If the players come at the game with a high fantasy background and expectation, it really doesn't matter what Gygax thought of fantasy too much. And by even his own admission, he purposefully put all kinds of high fantasy elements into the game to attract high fantasy fans. If a huge wave of the first generation of players were high fantasy fans, looking for (and seeing) high fantasy elements in the game, then THEIR GAMES WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGH FANTASY GAMES TOO. And if they were part of the first generation too, its nonsensical to call their approach "new school" and act as if it's some later development sparked by Tracy Hickman or whatever.</p><p></p><p>No it isn't. This doesn't have anything to do with sword & sorcery tropes becoming popular in a cyclical nature. That's a facile and--IMO--incorrect interpretation of it. What's happened with darker fantasy now is a completely independent development in the genre that has only superficial and coincidental resemblances to the classic sword & sorcery tale.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 5837078, member: 2205"] Clearly. My previous post referenced fantasy overall. Obliquely. No it doesn't. You brought up old-fashioned sword & sorcery stories, not me. They don't have any relevence to my original post, and the only relevance they have now is that I'm answering you on them now. With the popularity of Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Earthsea and others, publishers were looking for something that they could market as vaguely similar, and do so with a minimum of fuss, time and effort. Reprinting Howard, Moorcock and others fit that bill. But that wasn't the area of growth for the market. That mode was still on the wane, and high fantasy was what new stuff was. Ironically (or maybe not) even the new Conan novels that came out starting in the 70s or 80s, which had little of the feel of the older Conan material. Your perception of the state of the market at that time is fundamentally not consistent with mine. Short of some kind of industry reports or industry "expert testimony" we'll probably have to agree to disagree. Calling that a "small number of homages" rather than a "fairly thorough placement of D&D squarely in the market to appeal to Tolkien fans" strikes me as either wishful or revistionist thinking. And keep in mind here; I'm not talking about Gygax himself and what he wanted. I'm talking about the first generation of the RPG player base. Granted, there's no way to talk about that in a way that's not anecdotal, because to my knowledge there's no real data about their preferences or preferred playstyles much, other than that there clearly was plenty of pent-up demand for material that catered more overtly to a high fantasy rather than a sword & sorcery approach, given the popularity and rapid spread of material that more overtly did so. The game itself doesn't seem to favor one or the other at all in any way whatsoever, except by the mode of advancement via treasure and XP. And if you think that's a fundamental core feature of the game and the overt Tolkienisms are just a "small part" of the game, I'm gonna be forced to give you the "WTF?" face here--it would seem like you're trying to have it both ways and exempt stuff that doesn't fit your paradigm while simultaneously holding out small elements as indicative of what you want to demonstrate that the game was all about. Actually, if you wanted to look for some evidence of where the original mode of the game was, I think you'd be better off looking at some of the earlier modules. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find proof in there that rogues and ne'er-do-wells were the exception rather than heroes. I could be wrong there, though--I didn't play (or read) a lot of the modules back in the day. It seems to you. Key phrase there. Nothing about my position is any less or more "proveable" than yours. And the fact that it's "OSR Approved" to play more rogueishly rather than heroically doesn't really prove anything one way or another. I was playing D&D during the same time frame that the OSR is trying to emulate, and I can certainly say for a fact that the games I knew were more heroic, and that was the paradigm of all the gamers I knew, who came into gaming after reading Tolkien, Lewis and Alexander. Plus, I'm also familiar enough with the OSR to know that your characterization of it as having a unified playstyle that it identifies with is completely false. The OSR is as eclectic and varied as the actual old-school gaming situation was in the late seventies and early eighties, the dogmatic approach of a few very vocal bloggers notwithstanding. Well, two things: you're clearly in the Malizsewski camp (especially since you keep linking to his posts as if that proves something) that believes that the game was a sword and sorcery game with a high fantasy patina or gloss. That's debateable, but I won't argue that there isn't a valid reason or two to characterize the game that way. I don't agree with it, but I think it's a clearly valid opinion to have based on some elements of the game, and 2) I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GAME, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PLAYERS. I don't know how to more strongly [I][B]re[/B][/I]iterate that point. If the players come at the game with a high fantasy background and expectation, it really doesn't matter what Gygax thought of fantasy too much. And by even his own admission, he purposefully put all kinds of high fantasy elements into the game to attract high fantasy fans. If a huge wave of the first generation of players were high fantasy fans, looking for (and seeing) high fantasy elements in the game, then THEIR GAMES WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGH FANTASY GAMES TOO. And if they were part of the first generation too, its nonsensical to call their approach "new school" and act as if it's some later development sparked by Tracy Hickman or whatever. No it isn't. This doesn't have anything to do with sword & sorcery tropes becoming popular in a cyclical nature. That's a facile and--IMO--incorrect interpretation of it. What's happened with darker fantasy now is a completely independent development in the genre that has only superficial and coincidental resemblances to the classic sword & sorcery tale. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
DM - Adversarial or Permissive?
Top