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: 5837179" data-attributes="member: 2205"><p>No. ??</p><p></p><p>This whole sword & sorcery from the 20s and 30s was your insertion into the discussion. My point had nothing to do with it at all. I was making a point about fantasy in vogue in the late 60s, 70s and 80s and contrasting that with fantasy in vogue now.</p><p></p><p>??</p><p></p><p>Yes I was. So? That doesn't mean I was talking about fantasy in the 20s or 30s.</p><p></p><p>??</p><p></p><p>I don't think so. In fact, if you're going to claim that my perception is specious and expect me to take it seriously, I'd like to see something along the lines of growth and new publications of old-fashioned sword & sorcery style fantasy.</p><p></p><p>I can remember a handful of titles here and there. But that was not normative for the genre at that period, as I remember it.</p><p></p><p>Totally agree with you there.</p><p></p><p>Whereas James' "proof" that it was sword & sorcery with a superficial high fantasy patina is pretty much based on just the fact that the XP system rewarded the gaining of treasure and the fact that high fantasy is <em>lsightly</em> less prevalent on Appendix N.</p><p></p><p>I'd say my face right now is considerably straighter than yours. :shrug:</p><p></p><p>I never claimed that they were otherwise. Although I also claim that your assertions about the players at the time are anecdotes as well.</p><p></p><p>I don't. Like I said, the structural evidence in the game is really mostly limited to the XP system. You'd do better looking at some of the early modules and adventures, but even in those, "save the town", "rescue the captives", etc. were pretty prevalent as I remember. I don't think you'll prove your point there, athough I do think it's a more fertile and more convincing line of evidence to pursue.</p><p></p><p>Most of those really early modules really had no p"plot" at all and therefore didn't address player motivations one way or another. And by the time the 80s started, there was a bit more about "stopping raiding pirates or humanoids" "rescue such and such captive" or "protect the sleepy little town from cultists" or whatever.</p><p></p><p>The curious thing about the OSR, which I pointed out in another thread recently so it's still on my mind, is that it many ways its a product of <em>this</em> time in spite of its claims to hearken back to an earlier period in gaming's history.</p><p></p><p>Not that it doesn't indeed hearken back to an older time in gaming's history in many ways--the retroclone rulesets alone certainly demonstrate that--but in that what is faddish, popular, or dogmatic in the OSR is not really representative of how games were played "back in the day." I'm hardly the only gamer out there who started playing in the heyday of the "OSR Age" yet who looks at OSR dogma and scratches his head saying, "Huh? No, our games weren't at all like that."</p><p></p><p>IN PARTICULAR, if you're claiming (which you are) that the default, original, OSR or whatever mode of D&D is that PCs weren't heroes but were instead venal scoundrels, then I think you're going to be hard-pressed to "prove" that by referring to structural elements within the older rules of the game itself. And certainly you'll be hard-pressed to do so by referring to them vaguely while not actually providing any such examples at all.</p><p></p><p>Your original post--which made a claim that I took exception to, since it didn't match my experience at all--was that "originally" in D&D it was assumed that the PCs were villains, or at least not heroes, and that the heroic paradigm was one that came about much later. That claim is not about the game, it's about playstyle. And you haven't backed up your original claim with evidence from the game, only vague allusions to it.</p><p></p><p>So, actually, no... your claim right there isn't true.</p><p></p><p>I'm curious to see how.</p><p></p><p>You think it's foolish and wrong to look beyond a glance at modern fantasy compared to traditional sword & sorcery and seeing something other than what I want to see in a superficial similarity? Or am I foolish and wrong for assuming that the cultural drivers that led to that superficial similarity must be because our culture hasn't had any evolution in the last 80-90 years? Or is it perhaps foolish and wrong to assume that what's popular in a culture's entertainment literature reflects something of the values, believes and nature of that culture itself?</p><p></p><p>I think it's foolish and wrong to assume that something popular nearly a century ago is just going to come back into style again as part of some kind of weird cycle. The arts do have movements where people look to the past for inspiration, but when that happens, it's because of things that are going on right then in their culture that drives them to do so, and drives those movements to be popular. And just because there is a movement that mimics and older school doesn't mean that it really does so for the same reasons, or really resembles it at a fundamental structural level.</p><p></p><p>And all of that, of course, assumes that superficial similarities are in fact motivated by purposeful imitation of the older style. Which I don't believe to be true at all. I think you'll have a really hard time finding any really significant parallels between the set that includes Conan, Fafhrd, the Gray Mouser and Elric and the set that includes Locke Lamora, Sand dan Glokta, Annasurimbor Kellhus, and Kylar Stern. You'd do a better job looking for parralels for the second set by looking at cynical, jaded antiheroes like Sam Spade, James Bond, Michael Corleone and guys like that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 5837179, member: 2205"] No. ?? This whole sword & sorcery from the 20s and 30s was your insertion into the discussion. My point had nothing to do with it at all. I was making a point about fantasy in vogue in the late 60s, 70s and 80s and contrasting that with fantasy in vogue now. ?? Yes I was. So? That doesn't mean I was talking about fantasy in the 20s or 30s. ?? I don't think so. In fact, if you're going to claim that my perception is specious and expect me to take it seriously, I'd like to see something along the lines of growth and new publications of old-fashioned sword & sorcery style fantasy. I can remember a handful of titles here and there. But that was not normative for the genre at that period, as I remember it. Totally agree with you there. Whereas James' "proof" that it was sword & sorcery with a superficial high fantasy patina is pretty much based on just the fact that the XP system rewarded the gaining of treasure and the fact that high fantasy is [I]lsightly[/I] less prevalent on Appendix N. I'd say my face right now is considerably straighter than yours. :shrug: I never claimed that they were otherwise. Although I also claim that your assertions about the players at the time are anecdotes as well. I don't. Like I said, the structural evidence in the game is really mostly limited to the XP system. You'd do better looking at some of the early modules and adventures, but even in those, "save the town", "rescue the captives", etc. were pretty prevalent as I remember. I don't think you'll prove your point there, athough I do think it's a more fertile and more convincing line of evidence to pursue. Most of those really early modules really had no p"plot" at all and therefore didn't address player motivations one way or another. And by the time the 80s started, there was a bit more about "stopping raiding pirates or humanoids" "rescue such and such captive" or "protect the sleepy little town from cultists" or whatever. The curious thing about the OSR, which I pointed out in another thread recently so it's still on my mind, is that it many ways its a product of [I]this[/I] time in spite of its claims to hearken back to an earlier period in gaming's history. Not that it doesn't indeed hearken back to an older time in gaming's history in many ways--the retroclone rulesets alone certainly demonstrate that--but in that what is faddish, popular, or dogmatic in the OSR is not really representative of how games were played "back in the day." I'm hardly the only gamer out there who started playing in the heyday of the "OSR Age" yet who looks at OSR dogma and scratches his head saying, "Huh? No, our games weren't at all like that." IN PARTICULAR, if you're claiming (which you are) that the default, original, OSR or whatever mode of D&D is that PCs weren't heroes but were instead venal scoundrels, then I think you're going to be hard-pressed to "prove" that by referring to structural elements within the older rules of the game itself. And certainly you'll be hard-pressed to do so by referring to them vaguely while not actually providing any such examples at all. Your original post--which made a claim that I took exception to, since it didn't match my experience at all--was that "originally" in D&D it was assumed that the PCs were villains, or at least not heroes, and that the heroic paradigm was one that came about much later. That claim is not about the game, it's about playstyle. And you haven't backed up your original claim with evidence from the game, only vague allusions to it. So, actually, no... your claim right there isn't true. I'm curious to see how. You think it's foolish and wrong to look beyond a glance at modern fantasy compared to traditional sword & sorcery and seeing something other than what I want to see in a superficial similarity? Or am I foolish and wrong for assuming that the cultural drivers that led to that superficial similarity must be because our culture hasn't had any evolution in the last 80-90 years? Or is it perhaps foolish and wrong to assume that what's popular in a culture's entertainment literature reflects something of the values, believes and nature of that culture itself? I think it's foolish and wrong to assume that something popular nearly a century ago is just going to come back into style again as part of some kind of weird cycle. The arts do have movements where people look to the past for inspiration, but when that happens, it's because of things that are going on right then in their culture that drives them to do so, and drives those movements to be popular. And just because there is a movement that mimics and older school doesn't mean that it really does so for the same reasons, or really resembles it at a fundamental structural level. And all of that, of course, assumes that superficial similarities are in fact motivated by purposeful imitation of the older style. Which I don't believe to be true at all. I think you'll have a really hard time finding any really significant parallels between the set that includes Conan, Fafhrd, the Gray Mouser and Elric and the set that includes Locke Lamora, Sand dan Glokta, Annasurimbor Kellhus, and Kylar Stern. You'd do a better job looking for parralels for the second set by looking at cynical, jaded antiheroes like Sam Spade, James Bond, Michael Corleone and guys like that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
DM - Adversarial or Permissive?
Top