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

[Umbran]

I´ve insuled people? Where?

From your first post in the thread, your general snarky demeanor and dismissiveness has shown an overall lack of respect for other posters and their opinions - that is insulting. You should not be surprised if people take exception to being treated this way. I suggest you stop it.

Here's a hint for everyone - don't dismiss people's points by pigeonholing them. The fact that you have categorized people and arguments in your own mind does not imply those people and arguments don't have merit.

 

[Krensky]

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

Pratt is more HF then S&S, Zelazny was all over the map, but Amber is HF, Farmer's all over the map as well. Merrit's pretyt much straight pulp, although many of his stories as S&S in tone and many are more HF in tone, but he really predates the development of a distinction between SF and Fantasy, let alone the development of different genres within those genres. Farmer's pretty much SF or patiches of earlier Pulp stories, although many of his stories fall into the Sword and Planet subgenre. Poul Anderson did S&S, SF, HF, and lots of other things.

That said, I'm aware of Gygax's statements on the game's inspiration. Dave Arenson, on the other hand stated his inspirations where monster movies, Conana books (which he couldn't tell apart) and, to my understanding, is responsible for D&D as a whole and for the Tolkien influences. Not to mention all sorts of other assorted wackiness (steam power, submarines, aliens, laser guns, space ships, tanks, gunpowder, etc).

If Arneson and Gygax set out to write a Sword and Sorcery, High Fantasy, or any other fantasy sub-genre game, they failed miserably. They succeeded in creating D&D which is effectivel it's own genre due to mashing up and pastiching pretty much everything they though was cool together.

Arenson also said that role play and storytelling were the focus of his games.

 

[Krensky]

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.

You do realize that Gary wasn't the sole author and arguably wasn't even the important one for the booklets, right? Arenson came up with Blackmoor and used a modified version of Chainmail to run it. He then showed it to Gygax and they decided to publish it. Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk are distinctly HF settings.

 

[Cadfan]

I feel like High Fantasy is getting mangled a bit in this thread.

High Fantasy does not have some inherent property that good always triumphs over evil, except in the same sense that Sword and Sorcery has the inherent property that the protagonist always prevails because he's a badass. Its like there's some shifting of the bar going on... for example, James Bond always wins because he's the protagonist. But, that sense of "always wins" is a meta-story concept. Within the actual story his victory is not inevitable, he still has to go out and risk life and limb and actually defeat the bad guys, and if he screws up London will be eradicated with a moon based ketchup ray or whatnot.

Oh, and christian theology is getting mangled a bit in this thread as well. I'm not going to go into this too much, but suffice to say christian theology generally does not conceive of the triumph of good over evil as being inevitable in the affairs of men.

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're grouping way too many religious traditions under this weird phrase, "modern theology and philosophy." There is no modern, religion-independant concept of what god is really like. There may be a consensus within christian theology, or even judeo-christian theology, which is fine, but theology is not a field like biology or chemistry. You can't take your theological findings and double blind studies and experimental data and walk over to, say, a shinto shrine and explain to them that their concept of god has been theologically or philosophically disproven. Theology (almost always) proceeds from initial premises which preclude that sort of universality.

For the record, these statements are not particularly controversial amongst theologians. The wikipedia article on "theology" is not a bad source if you're looking for a quick summary of how "theology" as a field relates to inter-religious discourse.

 

[Zulgyan]

I don't say that D&D was born as a pure pure S&S game. It did have lots of conflicting influences.

But the S&S influence was strong. Or at least stronger than that which is today.

 

[Krensky]

Or at least stronger than that which is today.

This is the part you haven't proven or even really supported.

 

[Zulgyan]

Krensky: I am not saying that D&D was born as a pure pure S&S game. It did have lots of conflicting influences.

But the S&S influence was strong. Or at least stronger than that which is today.

 

[Zulgyan]

This is the part you haven't proven or even really supported.

To some, proof offered never seems to be enough. I have done what time and energy allowed me. You can continue your research on your own and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Krensky]

Krensky: I am not saying that D&D was born as a pure pure S&S game. It did have lots of conflicting influences.

But the S&S influence was strong. Or at least stronger than that which is today.

And you haven't really supported, let alone proved the thesis that 'modern' D&D is any less influenced by Sword and Sorcery then it was in the late 1970s. People's play is less influenced because the genre is not currently in vogue compared to other forms of fantasy, but the rules and setting are no more or less influenced now then they were in the 'old' era.

 

[Remathilis]

But the S&S influence was strong. Or at least stronger than that which is today.

Things go in and out of style, change and adapt.

In the 60's, westerns were the prime source of TV drama from Gunsmoke to the Lone Ranger.

The 70's brought us the Kung-Fu craze.

The 80's was the return of Sci-fi (specifically Space Opera)

The 90's brought us the black trench coat anti-hero.

Media adapts to the current taste. The taste for S&S died out years ago, and "HF" has grown to dominate modern fantasy. Jackson's LotR. Harry Potter. The Narnia chronicles. All of these are huge (again) and combined with the movies, animation (western & eastern), and video games of today, fantasy is a very different beast then when Gygax wrote his list.

Then again, they're talking about another Conan movie. Perhaps the more things change...