Forked thread; OSR and playstyles, sword & sorcery vs. high fantasy, etc.

[Desdichado]

I was going to distill this to a new post, but since Alzrius responded anyway, I'll just cut and paste from a quote screen and go from there. Actual post I was responding to is this: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5837287-post117.html

So, "fantasy overall" means "all fantasy except that from the 20's and 30's"?

This is silly. I was referring to fantasy overall at the time. As in fantasy outside of the RPG world. I made no reference to anything that was going on 40-50 years or so before D&D came about. Why you insist on making this germaine is a bit beyond me.

I already mentioned the various reprints and re-releases from the 20's and 30's that were coming out at that time. That they'd been released again is itself a suggestion that the market for such material was reinvigorated.

And I already mentioned that book publishers were happy to repackage older stuff and reprint it because it was faster, quicker, cheaper and easier than finding new authors. But new stuff coming out in the 70s and 80s that was like the original sword & sorcery? That was few and far between, and of the successful stuff, the only thing I can remember is the Robert Asprin Sanctuary stuff.

Which is what I've said all along. I'm not trying to argue that there wasn't demand for the reprints. Hardly. Merely that that wasn't really the normative mode for fantasy in the 70s and 80s. By a long shot. The normative mode was high fantasy.

Which is why--specifically--Gygax included a lot of Lord of the Ringisms and other high fantasy nods, even if it wasn't necessarily his favorite mode of fantasy. Because he knew that that's where the market was, or at least suspected as much. And the first generation of gamers--those that came in prior to Dragonlance and therefore are part of the generation that OSRers will call "their" Golden Age of gaming, was chock-full of high fantasy gamers who always played the game that way.

Which, lest we lose track of what we're actually talking about here as we go off after pedantic details, is what I'm taking exception to--your claim that the "old school" wasn't heroic, and that only "new school" D&D--after Dragonlance--was played that way.

I think that's preposterous.

My understanding is that it was.

What's your understanding based on? Were you reading fantasy at the time? I was, and fairly indiscriminately. High fantasy flooded the market. Sword & sorcery was available as a few reprints of some of the better authors, and a handful of other titles here and there.

I'd say you need to check your face again. Nobody used the word "proof" but it's certainly more suggestive of my interpretation than yours.

My face is just fine, thankyouverymuch. Are you seriously suggesting with a straight face that the XP system is a more thorough and suggestive tie to sword and sorcery than the presence of all kinds of Tolkienisms is to high fantasy right from the very get-go in the game?

If so, I doubt we'll have any common ground on which to continue this discussion. From my perspective, that's way beyond the tail wagging the dog, and very, very deep into crafting a just-so story that trumps up minor evidence to support your revisionist claim while dismissing or ignoring compelling evidence that contradicts it.

Hence why I want to talk about the game, and not the players.

Well, I don't. For one thing, I don't think it's nearly as interesting. For another thing, as I've already said, I don't think you can really tease very many meaningful "playstyle dictates" out of the rules.

By the time the 80's started, the New School was already in full swing (Dragonlance was the big debut for this sort of gaming), but before that most of the modules were indeed lacking of any sort of plot at all. Unto itself, this could be taken any way at all, but I do think that there's something to be said for, at the very least, that that doesn't slant the game towards epic heroism.

What 80s were you living in? Dragonlance was published at the very end of 1984 and wasn't influential on D&D as a whole until well into the mid-80s. I'm talking about by 1980 when the Drow series was starting, the Giants series had already run, Slave Lords was starting, Keep on the Borderlands was just out, Palace of the Silver Princess still hadn't been published yet, Village of Hommlet had just come out, Isle of Dread was just coming out, etc. Even by that time, already many of the modules had "save the kingdom", "defeat the evil whatsits that are threatening friendly villagers and farmers," stuff like that.

Granted, many of them also did not--they were just "here's a place rumored to have some treasure." That's why I think if you're actually trying to be taken seriously with this assertion, you'll find exploring the modules more fertile ground. But at best, I think you'll find that they're neutral on the subject, and quickly turn into "no, we expect your characters are kinda heroic, or at least out and about doing good."

As you noted, the XP system is a nod towards the style of game that I'm saying was there. Likewise, I'll admit that it's subtle, but that doesn't mean it's not present.

So, you've got one subtle nod towards style vs. all kinds of not-at-all subtle nods towards high fantasy throughout the entirety of the D&D game regardless of edition, and you think that "clearly" the game was meant to portray sword & sorcery and not high fantasy and "clearly" the players were meant to be venal mercenaries, not heroes?

That's just completely whack.

I don't disagree here - as I said, I don't think the OSR is united in their remembrance of what the "old school" was like. I'm simply saying that one of the central pillars of the old school is the rejection of epic heroism in their characters. Even then, I'll note that there are disagreements (especially when you get into questions of what constitutes "epic heroism").

And I'm saying that even if true; which I don't believe it is, then that doesn't really demonstrate anything except that the modern OSR fad also fetishes the sword & sorcery mode to the exclusion of high fantasy mode, in addition to preferring either old games or retro-clone type games.

I'd agree with that but that doesn't really say anything at all about how D&D was played prior to the publication of Dragonlance. I mean, it's completely unrelated.

You've already mentioned the "XP for GP" part of the rules, which is a big nod in that direction (though I don't know why you keep highlighting "prove"). As I noted, it's not definitive, but it's a major indicator that a major purpose of the game was to get rich.

And I don't know why you seem to take exception to the fact that I used the word prove, and make a point of pointing it out every time I do. Clearly, we're taking different positions on this issue, right? And clearly you are attempting to demonstrate that your position is more correct than mine? Am I completely misreading your intention here?

If so, then yeah, I guess maybe prove has no business being in this discussion. If all you wanted to do was tell me what you thought and then not back it up or elaborate or demonstrate anything other than that that was your opinion, well... cool, I guess. I think that's already been done, in fact.

First of all, you're wrong in what was in my original post. I simply said that the game originally assumed that the PCs were rogues on the make. You've clearly read something else in "rogues" (or perhaps "on the make").

Dude, seriously? Your original post as in "the post that I responded to which kicked off this tangential discussion. Surely you're not going to be so pedantic that you'll argue which post is your original post?

Likewise, you clearly understood the "XP for GP" part of the rules, all the while saying that you don't know what I'm talking about? That's disingenuous.

Are you kidding me? Of course I know what you're talking about. I gave you that argument! I made it for you!

And then I said that I found that to be very unconvincing. Especially when you said that thought that clearly D&D wasn't meant to emulate high fantasy because it "only" had about ten or so specific borrowings from The Lord of the Rings. My point was (paraphrasing), "Only?! I can only think of one that is an overt nod to sword & sorcery! One vs. ten is hardly compelling!" And now you're acting like your one nod, which even you admit is subtle, is really compelling evidence. You seem to have completely missed the whole point of me bringing it up if you are now going to post as if the argument that I gave you--specifically because it wasn't compelling enough to stand on its own, so I didn't have any problem making it--is somehow a fait accompli.

False. See above.

Again, see above.

Uh... I did see above. What exactly did you think I was responding to? In case it's not abundantly clear, it was "stuff that was above."

A (I suspect deliberate) misinterpretation on your part. I think it's foolish and wrong to assume that the current state of fantasy fiction has nothing to do with previous styles of fantasy fiction. You said that you think the current state of fantasy has nothing to do with how fantasy used to be written; I think that view is ignorant of the impact that previous authors have had on the current authors and readers, especially at a time when older works are more accessible than ever before.

So, now you're going to attack my character (a deliberate misinterpretation? Really?) and create a strawman (nothing to do with past authors?) I certainly disagree with the notion that the reason dark fantasy is popular today is merely a cyclical return of sword & sorcery conventions, given that its growth can fairly easily be traced to writers like Glen Cook, then George R. R. Martin, then Joe Abercrombie and a ton of others who are very much not at all writing in a sword & sorcery mode. The current trend of antiheroic characters has a completely different genesis than sword & sorcery.

That doesn't mean that authors today haven't read authors in the past or been influenced by them. Please, just stick to responding to the points I do make, not the ones I don't.

I think that this view is tragically misguided. Even overlooking how many contemporary authors claim to have been influenced by older authors, the sheer prevalence of past works being made available to people is not only great, but increasing. Works that could only be found in certain libraries are now to be found in most bookstores, and can often be found on various websites. To say that these are being brought back into the public consciousness, while denying that they have any influence, is to be completely blind to not just the obvious, but also to ignore the simple "cause and effect" nature of influence within a single genre.

Heh. Strawman again. I'm talking about a very specific trend and saying that it is not merely a cyclical repeat of past trends coming 'round again, because it was influenced by completely different cultural drivers altogether. How you got from that to rebutting the claim that I didn't make that writers write in a vaccuum completely without reference to their predecessors is beyond me.

 

[Nellisir]

And I already mentioned that book publishers were happy to repackage older stuff and reprint it because it was faster, quicker, cheaper and easier than finding new authors. But new stuff coming out in the 70s and 80s that was like the original sword & sorcery? That was few and far between, and of the successful stuff, the only thing I can remember is the Robert Asprin Sanctuary stuff.

Which is what I've said all along. I'm not trying to argue that there wasn't demand for the reprints. Hardly. Merely that that wasn't really the normative mode for fantasy in the 70s and 80s. By a long shot. The normative mode was high fantasy.

The Lord of the Rings was published in 1954-1955. Fantasy literature at the time was slight at best, but began to pick up speed in the 1960's with Chronicles of Prydain (1964), Elric of Melnibone (1965), and Earthsea (1968). There was a lot of flow between science fiction & fantasy at this point; s-f was an established genre, while fantasy was still emergent in the market, and the noteworthy authors (Moorcock, Saberhagen, Zelazny, LeGuin) worked in both fields, often simultaneously. The Chronicles of Amber (1970) bridges the time between the emergence of fantasy as a genre and its evolution into "modern" fantasy with the publication of The Sword of Shannara (1977) which was the first fantasy book to hit the New York Times Bestseller list. Xanth and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever were also launched in 1977.

I was born in 1972, and didn't start reading fantasy/sci-fi with any significance until 1982 or 1983. I read a lot of "older" authors, but primarily through the Science Fiction Book Club, because they -weren't- (in my experience) consistently available in bookstores.

The splintering of fantasy into subgenres is, IME, primarily sourced in the 1990s, although there were early divisions (humor, "romance"). High/Tolkeinesque fantasy became cliche, and authors branched into other forms, or explored older, pre-Tolkein forms, including the "sword and sorcery" subgenre (named in the 1960's) that derived from adventure fiction and pulp magazines in the 1920's and 1930's.

At least, that's how I see it. Gotta go now.

 

[Nellisir]

So, interesting observation, "early" D&D (1976) clearly did distinguish between "Fantasy" and "Sword & Sorcery".

"It is important to remember that fantasy gaming differs from fantasy literature. Fantasy gaming encompasses fantasy, swords and sorcery, and science fiction."
Source? Tim Kask, Editor, Dragon magazine #2. Aug. 1976

 

[Alzrius]

This is silly. I was referring to fantasy overall at the time. As in fantasy outside of the RPG world. I made no reference to anything that was going on 40-50 years or so before D&D came about. Why you insist on making this germaine is a bit beyond me.

I'm very aware that it's beyond you, but I'll explain it again. When you say "fantasy overall," that doesn't mean "overall except for X time period."

And I already mentioned that book publishers were happy to repackage older stuff and reprint it because it was faster, quicker, cheaper and easier than finding new authors. But new stuff coming out in the 70s and 80s that was like the original sword & sorcery? That was few and far between, and of the successful stuff, the only thing I can remember is the Robert Asprin Sanctuary stuff.

You're overlooking the fact that they wouldn't have reprinted that material to begin with if it wasn't in demand. The fact that the market for it had suddenly re-emerged after decades is a strong indicator that it was experiencing a revival.

Which is what I've said all along. I'm not trying to argue that there wasn't demand for the reprints. Hardly. Merely that that wasn't really the normative mode for fantasy in the 70s and 80s. By a long shot. The normative mode was high fantasy.

Again, this is incorrect. In an era with gritty fantasy writers such as Glen Cook, Fritz Leiber (who was still writing Fafhrd and Gray Mouser into the 80's), Gardner Fox, L. Sprague de Camp, Michael Shea, and others, I disagree with the notion that the "normative mode" for the 60's through the 80's was epic fantasy.

Which is why--specifically--Gygax included a lot of Lord of the Ringisms and other high fantasy nods, even if it wasn't necessarily his favorite mode of fantasy.

I've already shown that Gary included only a small handful of nods to the Lord of the Rings, and virtually none to Arthurian legend (as you claimed). Hence, it's deliberately disingenuous on your part to talk about "a lot" of such material.

Because he knew that that's where the market was, or at least suspected as much. And the first generation of gamers--those that came in prior to Dragonlance and therefore are part of the generation that OSRers will call "their" Golden Age of gaming, was chock-full of high fantasy gamers who always played the game that way.

I do enjoy how you talk about your experienced with the players of that era as "anecdotal" and then make such sweeping generalizations about them anyway.

This is to say nothing of the fact that I've already said I'm talking about the game, and not the players (save for the part where you segued into fantasy fiction).

Which, lest we lose track of what we're actually talking about here as we go off after pedantic details, is what I'm taking exception to--your claim that the "old school" wasn't heroic, and that only "new school" D&D--after Dragonlance--was played that way.

I think that's preposterous.

That's because you keep choosing to misunderstand me. I'm saying that the game was leaning in the direction of non-epic heroic play. You're the who keeps turning that into something it's not.

What's your understanding based on? Were you reading fantasy at the time? I was, and fairly indiscriminately. High fantasy flooded the market. Sword & sorcery was available as a few reprints of some of the better authors, and a handful of other titles here and there.

Provably wrong; see above. Likewise, you keep trying to drag the fantasy fiction market into the discussion - that won't prove anything anyway, but my read of that is as I've said several times now, based on the game itself.

My face is just fine, thankyouverymuch.

I think you better check again.

Are you seriously suggesting with a straight face that the XP system is a more thorough and suggestive tie to sword and sorcery than the presence of all kinds of Tolkienisms is to high fantasy right from the very get-go in the game?

Are you seriously going back to that silly "all kinds of Tolkienisms" after I've already conclusively ended that foolish train of thought? There are barely a half-dozen references to Tolkien in D&D. Stop pretending it's something pervasive.

If so, I doubt we'll have any common ground on which to continue this discussion.

And yet you seem to eager to do so.

From my perspective, that's way beyond the tail wagging the dog, and very, very deep into crafting a just-so story that trumps up minor evidence to support your revisionist claim while dismissing or ignoring compelling evidence that contradicts it.

You have no such compelling evidence, and have repeatedly ignored the irrefutable evidence that I've brought up to undercut your baseless assertions. At this point, you are the tail that's futilely trying to wag the dog.

Well, I don't. For one thing, I don't think it's nearly as interesting. For another thing, as I've already said, I don't think you can really tease very many meaningful "playstyle dictates" out of the rules.

The fact that you'd rather make claims about the players of the era that you admit can't be proven speaks to that.

What 80s were you living in?

The real one. What about you?

Dragonlance was published at the very end of 1984 and wasn't influential on D&D as a whole until well into the mid-80s. I'm talking about by 1980 when the Drow series was starting, the Giants series had already run, Slave Lords was starting, Keep on the Borderlands was just out, Palace of the Silver Princess still hadn't been published yet, Village of Hommlet had just come out, Isle of Dread was just coming out, etc. Even by that time, already many of the modules had "save the kingdom", "defeat the evil whatsits that are threatening friendly villagers and farmers," stuff like that.

It's funny that you had previously noted that so many adventures lacked a plot at all, but you now point to those same modules as not only having a plot, but one that backs up your point. You can't seem to keep the same stance on things between posts.

The modules you mentioned did contain instances of evils that were to be defeated. So does a lot of gritty fantasy. There's a difference between that and the epic heroic tale; this seems to be lost on you.

Granted, many of them also did not--they were just "here's a place rumored to have some treasure." That's why I think if you're actually trying to be taken seriously with this assertion, you'll find exploring the modules more fertile ground. But at best, I think you'll find that they're neutral on the subject, and quickly turn into "no, we expect your characters are kinda heroic, or at least out and about doing good."

Now you realize that you've stumbled and are trying to backtrack, but it's already too late. You can't claim that those modules represent an emerging "save the world" mentality while still saying "oh, but they're neutral."

So, you've got one subtle nod towards style vs. all kinds of not-at-all subtle nods towards high fantasy throughout the entirety of the D&D game regardless of edition, and you think that "clearly" the game was meant to portray sword & sorcery and not high fantasy and "clearly" the players were meant to be venal mercenaries, not heroes?

And now you're saying those older modules were evidence of your style of play again. You should run for public office with all of the flip-flopping you do.

That's just completely whack.

Whoa, go easy on the language there Opie, with jive-talk like that, who can keep up?

And I'm saying that even if true; which I don't believe it is, then that doesn't really demonstrate anything except that the modern OSR fad also fetishes the sword & sorcery mode to the exclusion of high fantasy mode, in addition to preferring either old games or retro-clone type games.

You do realize this is an admission that I was correct, right? In other words, you're outright admitting that a central part of the OSR is that they prefer games that are gritty fantasy.

I'd agree with that but that doesn't really say anything at all about how D&D was played prior to the publication of Dragonlance. I mean, it's completely unrelated.

Considering that you jumped into this to say that you disagreed that the above was part of the definition of "old school," then it's eminently related.

And I don't know why you seem to take exception to the fact that I used the word prove, and make a point of pointing it out every time I do. Clearly, we're taking different positions on this issue, right? And clearly you are attempting to demonstrate that your position is more correct than mine? Am I completely misreading your intention here?

I was simply calling attention to how you kept emphasizing the word with quotation marks, as though it were very important to call attention to it in relation to someone else having said it. Why you did so remains a mystery.

If so, then yeah, I guess maybe prove has no business being in this discussion. If all you wanted to do was tell me what you thought and then not back it up or elaborate or demonstrate anything other than that that was your opinion, well... cool, I guess. I think that's already been done, in fact.

You're telling your own story. See above for why you are "provably" wrong in your assertions (see? I can do it too).

Dude, seriously? Your original post as in "the post that I responded to which kicked off this tangential discussion. Surely you're not going to be so pedantic that you'll argue which post is your original post?

You're babbling now. You misrepresented what was in my initial post, so now you're arguing about whether or not it was my first post? What?

Are you kidding me? Of course I know what you're talking about. I gave you that argument! I made it for you!

The very fact that you're making my argument doesn't clue you in to the fact that you've already lost this particular debate?

And then I said that I found that to be very unconvincing. Especially when you said that thought that clearly D&D wasn't meant to emulate high fantasy because it "only" had about ten or so specific borrowings from The Lord of the Rings.

Okay, now I understand why you keep harping on those. You seem to be under the impression that one point is equal to another; that having a few small Tolkienisms is somehow more weighty than one major nod in the other direction. It's still wrong-headed, but at least understandably so.

My point was (paraphrasing), "Only?! I can only think of one that is an overt nod to sword & sorcery! One vs. ten is hardly compelling!" And now you're acting like your one nod, which even you admit is subtle, is really compelling evidence. You seem to have completely missed the whole point of me bringing it up if you are now going to post as if the argument that I gave you--specifically because it wasn't compelling enough to stand on its own, so I didn't have any problem making it--is somehow a fait accompli.

Right...because XP never comes up, but balrogs are just everywhere.

Uh... I did see above. What exactly did you think I was responding to? In case it's not abundantly clear, it was "stuff that was above."

There's only so often that I can keep repeating the exact same point over and over until you realize what it means.

So, now you're going to attack my character (a deliberate misinterpretation? Really?) and create a strawman (nothing to do with past authors?)

Kid, you really don't want to go there. Seriously, you've been acting puerile throughout this entire discussion, and now you want to throw accusations of impoliteness. This, more than anything else, shows just lacking in self-awareness you are.

I certainly disagree with the notion that the reason dark fantasy is popular today is merely a cyclical return of sword & sorcery conventions, given that its growth can fairly easily be traced to writers like Glen Cook, then George R. R. Martin, then Joe Abercrombie and a ton of others who are very much not at all writing in a sword & sorcery mode. The current trend of antiheroic characters has a completely different genesis than sword & sorcery.

If you can't see the direct connection between previous gritty fantasy and the stories written today, then there's really nothing I can say to convince you - that level of denial isn't something facts can usually touch.

That doesn't mean that authors today haven't read authors in the past or been influenced by them. Please, just stick to responding to the points I do make, not the ones I don't.

I already have; in the future, please respond to them instead of just flatly ignoring them or just saying "nope."

Heh. Strawman again. I'm talking about a very specific trend and saying that it is not merely a cyclical repeat of past trends coming 'round again, because it was influenced by completely different cultural drivers altogether. How you got from that to rebutting the claim that I didn't make that writers write in a vaccuum completely without reference to their predecessors is beyond me.

That you'd call someone else's argument a straw man is only answerable with laughter. How you can claim that new dark fantasy is completely different from old dark fantasy and then claim that the former is due to cultural influence, but not from the latter, is beyond me.

Frankly, if you're going to call the first 6 years of D&D "old school", and lump the next 32 years (or more!) into "new school", I think your bias is showing

Frankly, if you think that a school of play has some sort of time-requirement, then I think you need to re-examine where the bias is.

I think a lot of people look at design decisions from the early days of the hobby and assume, usually unconciously, that the design parameters and choices we make today sprang, full-fledged, onto the earth when Gygax first conceived of D&D. Many people (and I'm sorry, I'm treading on sacred ground here), also presume that Gygax is unsurpassed and unequalled as a master of game design, which begs the question why more people don't play Dangerous Journeys or Lejendary Adventures.

I'm not sure what you're commenting on here, since this has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said so far.

So, I think you're overthinking it. Much of our current design vocabulary simple didn't exist.

This is too general a point to respond to, so I'll say that just because the vocabulary didn't exist doesn't mean that the school of thought didn't.

For what it's worth, when I reference fiction as a resource, I usually look at the Mabinogion or Chretien de Troyes.

Finally, looking at the description of sword & sorcery (a subgenre much referenced by the OSR adherents) fantasy on Wikipedia, I find it interesting that there's no mention of "character".

Um, what? You do realize that the text you quoted mentions that the stakes tend to be personal and the danger confined to the moment of telling, right? That's the opposite of epic heroism.

 

[Nellisir]

I'd like to move beyond the character attacks & so forth. As far as your comments to me in your initial post, please keep in mind that you judged & labelled my campaign style based on two brief paragraphs. I find that label interesting, but not useful in any sort of meaningful evaluation, and thus do not either agree or disagree with it. Your assumptions beyond what I wrote are entirely your own.

I skimmed through the first 5 issues of Dragon, and the 7 issues of Strategic Review, looking for something, preferably from Gygax, to shed some light on this issue. Strategic Review Vol 2, #2 D&D is only as good as the DM, by EGG.

This is not what I'd consider a definitive answer, but it is illuminating. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think it lends itself to my belief that this entire debate is misplaced, and there simply -wasn't- a design intent, but rather, design assumptions inherited or passed on by Gary. The evidence, as I read it, is that there was no intended style as we would define it. The early issues make nothing so clear as that D&D evolved from wargames, and the entire concept of "role" playing was in an infancy at best. 12 issues of TSR and The Dragon, and zero mention of campaign story, plot, characterization, or other "role" issues. It's clear that Garyhas some concept of what we would call dungeon "ecology" (monsters should not exist just to be slain or guard treasure), but his advice for a "good" campaign is to make magic rare and challenge players with monsters and traps, a clear wargame mentality.

It's possible to argue that this is "rogue on the make" by default, but "rogue on the make" is a -character- motivation, or story style, and Gary is addressing -player- motivation. His prescription for good D&D is, exactly: "By requiring players to work for experience, to earn their treasure, means that the opportunity to retain interest will remain." Characterization and story are nonexistent.

The character exists as means for the player to interact with the game world, and the player's interest is retained in the game by mechanical challenges. The character, literally, is no more than a token on a board.

Cheers,
Nell.

PS - If pressed, I would hypothesize that Gary would personally favor "rogue-on-the-make", officially find the choice largely irrelevant, and try to have both sides by writing books about a rogue that saves the universe and becomes a demigod.

 

[Piratecat]

This thread started combative, and I'm closing it before it fully reaches its potential. If you want to discuss the topic again in a week or so, and do it without starting a personal debate with one person, you're welcome to do so.

Klunk.

 

[Piratecat]

And a small bit of editorializing: my general guideline of "any post with more than a half dozen quotes in it is probably a pain in the ass" remains true here. At that point, people are usually talking at one another instead of to them. Not my favorite thing, even if I'm interested in the topic.