"HF" vs. "S&S" gaming: the underlying reason of conflict and change in D&D

[Zulgyan]

Shanarra is high fantasy and has no gods of note. The D&D novels are, generally, high fantasy and have gods on both sides.

I think you are confusing "gods" in lowe-case, with God with capital letter. In High Fantasy, a cosmological higher force of good will not let evil triumph. That is based on the Christian God. The gods from the novels are not Gods in the way modern theology and philosophy interpret the concept of God. They are just ultra power beings on different sides of the conflict.

You say it:

As I saiud above, numerous HF stories have no Gods or have good Gods who are essentially powerless because they're opposed by bad Gods.

So if these gods are powerless, then they not like God. People call the gods just because they are very very powerful. But they don't have the omnipotence and omnipresence that characterizes God.

It's not a poor reading, it's a mechanistic crtique. At the core, Conan survives because he made Howard money. Conana can't loose, because Howard's editors would not buy a story that had that happen, because it would anger the readers and Howard would starve. Primary characters are far more likely to die in HF then S&S.

From this point of view, all literature would be point-less.

 

[Krensky]

Well, if you read boards and blog often, and even the 4E rulebooks, you'll notice that many people don't think you can freely ignore those prescriptions.

This is the internet. There's someone out there insisting the sky is really mauve with yellow polka dots. That said, many people like to play the rules as written. The reasons for this vary, some good and some bad.

What I have tried to identify is "where does that come from?". I believe it comes from people trying to make the game look more like a high fantasy novel.

It comes from the popularity of unified rule systems and organized play. The ever increasing equipment thing is peculiar to D&D. Look at the two exemplar of HF you brought up. In Narnia the characters get one set of gear a book, it doesn't even replace their gear from the previous book since they lost that at the end of the last book. In LotR, the hero basically get three equipment upgrades. Once at the barrow, once at Rivendell, and once from the elves. In total, Frodo gets two weapons, one suit of armor, an elven cloak, and a special weapon to deal with a specific foe. Looks nothing like the D&D arms race.

 

[Zulgyan]

organized play.

This indeed another major factor of change in the history of D&D. I agree.

But many many player's don't play in RPGA, and I think their main source of frustration with the older editions, is that they wanted their game to be more like a High Fantasy novel, rather than a Sword & Sorcery one. Even without noticing it. Because many people never read the S&S novels. They just read the HF that are more in fashion today. So they have a certain preconception about how fantasy should work.

 

[Krensky]

I think you are confusing "gods" in lowe-case, with God with capital letter. In High Fantasy, a cosmological higher force of good will not let evil triumph. That is based on the Christian God. The gods from the novels are not Gods in the way modern theology and philosophy interpret the concept of God. They are just ultra power beings on different sides of the conflict.

So if these gods are powerless, then they not like God. People call the gods just because they are very very powerful. But they don't have the omnipotence and omnipresence that characterizes God.

I fail to see a difference, but properly answering your argument here would likely violate the board rules. There are numerous other views in theology and philosophy then the Christian one, you should study some other faiths and philosophies before making broad statements like this.

Record of the Lodoss War and the other Forcelia works are High Fantasy, and have no supreme being at all. They don't even really have much in line of deities period really, and I can only really think of one case where one actually interveined, by sending a priestess a one sentence message. Sure, priests and priestess cast spells and they're different sorts then the wizards, but they cast them the same way.

Although it is not, strictly speaking, High Fantasy, many elements of Journey to the West do fit into similar conventions and it has all of the gods and demons subservient to an enlightened man (and later on, an enlightened monkey).

High Fantasy does not require a prime actor, and is not an inherently Abrahamic exercise in morality. Especially since the general concepts of good and evil employed in most are inherent to the human condition, rather then any particular faith. In many cases there's no actual discussion of why the Dark Lord is evil, he just is.

From this point of view, all literature would be point-less.

No, different authors write for different reasons. Tolkein and Lewis wrote because they wanted to. Conan Doyle wrote because he wanted to. None of them needed to write to support themselves. Howard, Lieber, C.L. Moore, etc wrote because that was wanted to so and in order to support themselves. Proper analysis and critique of a work is helped by understanding the author's motivations for writing a piece. In the case of Conan and many other S&S stories when the genre began, it was to feed themselves. Much like a script writer churning out action movie scripts.

That said, even if the motivation was to make money (note this was Rowling's motivations in Harry Potter, which is High Fantasy), that doesn't make it any less entertaining. Which, contrary to what many academic fiction authors think is the point to writing a book.

 

[Krensky]

This indeed another major factor of change in the history of D&D. I agree.

But many many player's don't play in RPGA, and I think their main source of frustration with the older editions, is that they wanted their game to be more like a High Fantasy novel, rather than a Sword & Sorcery one. Even without noticing it. Because many people never read the S&S novels. They just read the HF that are more in fashion today. So they have a certain preconception about how fantasy should work.

You keep saying that, but you haven't provided any real supporting evidence that 'modern' D&D is any more HF then 'old' D&D, or that 'old' D&D was any more S&S then 'new' D&D.

 

[Zulgyan]

The evidence lies on the sources of inspiration Gary used, and the ones used currently.

EGG numerous times said he was much more inspired by S&S. That the Tolkien influences were just superficial, cosmetic. To make the game sell better. He said this A LOT. He even called Tokien's masterpiece "The Bore of the Rings". You can do your research if you want to.

Here is a helpful link: Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Umbran]

The evidence lies on the sources of inspiration Gary used, and the ones used currently.

As I think was said upthread - the game was more than Gary's original intent.

Do remember that Gary was still a novice at RPG design (the first person to do it must, perforce, be a novice), so that his ability to design those early editions to do exactly what he wanted had significant limits. Even if he wanted S&S, that does not mean that's what he got.

Whatever Gary intended, people did with his rule set as they desired. I doubt you'll find anything other than anecdotal evidence that people played the game more in one form or another. If you are correct in your assertion that Gary used a lot of HF window dressing to make it sell argues strongly that he expected people to be interested in that sort of thing - and that they'd thus likely use his game for that sort of thing, whatever his personal inspirations.

 

[Zulgyan]

Yes you said it, and I answered above as well.

Generally, the most authentic interpretation of a game, is the one of it's author. That's why his opinions are more relevant towards understanding "what the game was supposed to be".

Yes, people played D&D as they wanted, and there is nothing wrong with that. And those who played D&D in a fashion more similar to HF, started thinking that some things of the original game needed to be corrected and changed to suite their style better. This gamers were a majority - that's why 3.5 and 4E are the way they are today. There are other many other factors, but this one is relevant.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think 1e vs 2e (or pre-Gary and post-Gary, or pre-Dragonlance and post-Dragonlance) fits the S&S vs HF model better than old school vs new school.

S&S - Protagonists are motivated by greed. Stories are short. Threats are personal. Setting isn't that important.
HF - Protagonists are motivated by altruism or duty. Epic adventures. Threats to the world. Setting uber alles.

In Gygaxian D&D, PCs are motivated mostly by treasure and magic items. XP was awarded for gold. PCs were expected to reach name level after a year of play. Adventures are non-linear and most were standalone, though the GDQ series was the first adventure path.

In 2e there was an increased emphasis on setting. Adventure paths became more common, the DL adventure path was a massive epic. Dragonlance modules were heavily railroaded. From 2e onwards the PCs are assumed to be good guys, there was no assassin in 2e.

 

[Zulgyan]

I can agree with you on that. It quite the same thing I'm saying, using different names for the categories.