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

[Krensky]

Ok... which edition supports better a HF style campaign?

HF as a literary style? All of them do it equally poorly. They places where they fall short or get wonky differ from edition to edition though.

 

[Desdichado]

You have to post my complete quote dude, not just the beginning...

Huh? Are you talking to me? In any case: FAIL. No, you need to only quote the part that's relevent to your response. Otherwise, you're messing up the thread with giant walls of quoted text, which doesn't do anyone any favors.

You even took away a coma and replaced it with a period. Dishonest quoting pal...

?? Huh? Are you saying that for real?

Ok... which edition supports better a HF style campaign?

Also not sure who you're asking this of, but my whole point is that no edition of D&D more strongly supports high fantasy or sword & sorcery, because most of the mechanics are gamist, not genre emulation. I've played games taht were similar to both genres in multiple iterations of D&D and never once thought that one edition "supported" one fantasy subgenre better than another.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Also not sure who you're asking this of, but my whole point is that no edition of D&D more strongly supports high fantasy or sword & sorcery, because most of the mechanics are gamist, not genre emulation. I've played games taht were similar to both genres in multiple iterations of D&D and never once thought that one edition "supported" one fantasy subgenre better than another.

I have one thing to say to this:

/thread

 

[Fanaelialae]

Guys, when I made the list, it was to give proof that AD&D was strong S&S, not to say that 3E or 4E was not. The guy I quoted asked me for something, and I answered.

Again, I never said that 3E or 4E was pure HF.

I say that many people want D&D -any edition- to work more like HF game. This is undeniable, you see it all around the net. You see it in published modules, in adventure paths, published campaign sagas, etc. etc. And D&D was never quite suitable for that, because it still maintains many S&S elements! As you guys have answered.

That is why -my thesis- in order to make the current prevalent campaign and adventure design work, one that is more rooted in HF than in S&S, the system has incorporate rules to make everything easier to archive and more automatic, so that the "story" or "campaign saga" doesn't get spoiled by character deaths, lack of appropriate treasure at the right time, facing the arch-enemy when they aren't high level enough, etc.

While I can only speak for myself, I think you may confusing an increasing interest in certain HF elements with a dislike of S&S. I don't think that D&D is any worse at modeling HF than it is with S&S. I also have doubts that people want to play "pure" HF, particularly as you define it.

I enjoy continuous storylines. I enjoy epic storylines. I enjoy creating a character with personality and background depth (which I find rather difficult when creating a "disposable" character).

That said, I also enjoy being challenged, both as a character and as a player. I enjoy the threat of death, and I've enjoyed the deaths of quite a few of my characters, despite that they were characters who I enjoyed playing. I don't want the divine Creator (or the DM) to hand me success on a silver platter regardless of whether I act cleverly or like an idiot. I want to earn my success, though I'd prefer it with only one or two character deaths at most (in other words, I enjoy a challenge but the DM ought not to make things "stupid hard" so long as I don't do something really stupid).

IMO, my group uses elements of both HF and S&S in our games. I think the flexibility of D&D, to play to a particular group's preferences, is a strength rather than a flaw. I suppose that if there are those who want to play D&D as close to HF as absolutely possible, some house rules might be in order, but I honestly think that changing the game itself (ie, making 5e a "true" HF game) would be a mistake.

Don't confuse an increasing trend towards aspects of HF for a general dislike of S&S. Plenty of people like both to varying degrees. I'm not sure there is as significant a divide between HF and S&S as you seem to believe.

 

[Zulgyan]

I enjoy continuous storylines. I enjoy epic storylines. I enjoy creating a character with personality and background depth (which I find rather difficult when creating a "disposable" character).

Well, this is much more in vein with HF. Nothing is wrong with that of course.

S&S is more characterized by a short narrative structure, short stories, and less in depth analysis of character personality and background. Some characters were featured in so many stories (like Conan), that we know a lot about them. But what you get from them in each story is little. Is the sum of all that makes it big.

Don't confuse an increasing trend towards aspects of HF for a general dislike of S&S. Plenty of people like both to varying degrees. I'm not sure there is as significant a divide between HF and S&S as you seem to believe.

If you accept that old D&D editions were strong S&S, and that the current 4E is more like 50%/50%, they you would have to agree with me.

People seem to read everything with an extremist interpretation.

I basically say that HF elements in D&D increased in it's history. Do you agree with that?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, this is much more in vein with HF. Nothing is wrong with that of course.

Yes, I personally am more of a HF style person, particularly according to your definitions. That doesn't mean that I don't deeply enjoy S&S elements as well. One of my favorite campaigns was structured in a S&S manner with an overarching "HF" plot in the background. Nonetheless, victory was far from assured and, in fact, our PCs had numerous opportunities to screw the world rather than save it.

S&S is more characterized by a short narrative structure, short stories, and less in depth analysis of character personality and background. Some characters where featured in so many stories (like Conan), that we know a lot about them. But what you get from them in each story is little. Is the sum of all that makes it big.

Yes, but if that were the entirety of what defined the S&S genre, there would be no need for this discussion, as every edition of D&D can be equally episodic.

If you accept that old D&D editions were strong S&S, and that the current 4E is more like 50%/50%, they you would have to agree with me.

I don't agree with this at all. IMO, it is more like D&D has always been 90% the D&D genre, with the remaining 10% split up differently. Sure, maybe you could say that 1e is 7% S&S and 3% HF while 4e is 5%/5% (or whatever), but does it honestly matter that AD&D had 2% more S&S than 4e? In the end, IMO, the genre is primarily one that is uniquely D&D, not HF or S&S.

I basically say that HF elements in D&D increased in it's history. Do you agree with that?

Yes. However, as I stated above, I remain unconvinced that it was a meaningful increase.

 

[Kishin]

Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Magnificent Seven are almost shot for shot remakes of Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and The Seven Samurai.

Whoa there. This isn't a Kurosawa thread, but, I will say, that's a pretty bold statement.

I otherwise agree. D&D is now and has been for some time, its own brand of fantasy. It synthesizes and builds upon elements from across such a wide base of influences (Lovecraftian horror, science fiction, sword and sorcery, pulp adventure, etc. etc.) that it has become something else entirely, that isn't readily able to be slotted into any of these categories.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Ok... which edition supports better a HF style campaign?

2nd ed

 

[Zulgyan]

2nd ed

I said something about this on the OP:

2E wants to be High Fantasy, but it does not have the mechanical support to achieve it. There are nearly no elements of player entitlement. They game fails to achieve it's premise. This is the main reason for the spawning of some many alternatives to D&D, that want to achieve High Fantasy with the mechanical support D&D does not have. Those games focus on "getting the story right".

 

[Ariosto]

I was disagreeing with some other opinions that because it started out "S&S", it should have STAYED there and that the change toward HF is what "ruined" D&D.

Follow the quote links back to see who I was responding to...

... and find that the one in question expressed no such opinions. Indeed, the passage you quoted appears to be in agreement with your first paragraph in that post. Perhaps you are as confused as the one you seem to be attacking?