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

[Doug McCrae]

I think you might be on to something here but your terminology is wrong. Old school D&D doesn't particularly resemble classic sword & sorcery fiction. I don't remember Conan dying from a poison spider bite in the first story, then being reincarnated as a dryad. Also you're very wrong about the death rate in 3e, the rules don't assume all encounters will be balanced, that's a misinterpretation, and death is quite likely even when they are. Though 3e and 4e both assume the PCs will be good guys, they don't assume they will win, or die a heroic death at the 'right time'.

d20 D&D PCs are mechanically complex, unlike earlier editions. Assumptions in rpgs have changed since the 70s, PCs are more interesting now both mechanically and in terms of back story and personality. So if they die it's a big problem, unlike in old school play. Unfortunately under the 3e rules they die quite frequently. 4e makes death less likely. But it doesn't guarantee success, so even the 4e rules don't support the telling of a story where the good guys win.

You are right to make a distinction between 'karmic gaming universes' where the good guys are certain to win, and non-karmic. But you can't really tie non-karmic to S&S, as the protagonists win in S&S just as often as the protagonists in HF, and they're still much more sympathetic than the bad guys, just not as altruistic as the HF heroes. And 3e and 4e aren't karmic by the rules, that requires GM fudging in every edition. In fact it was probably most strongly encouraged in 2e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hi.

Just wanted to say, "Interesting discussion".

AFAICT, though, the S&S genre doesn't come from an athiest POV. There are "gods" in Conan, for instance, and Solomon Kane certainly is Christian. The gods in Newhon, like those in Greyhawk, take an active role in the world.

What S&S projects is a world in which there is not an overarching plan, sometimes because there are no gods, sometimes because there are disinterested gods, and sometimes because the gods themselves are not all-powerful, and squabble among themselves.

IMHO, anyway.

For this reason, I have to side with Aus_Snow. If you are going to define S&S as primarily atheistic in viewpoint, then I am going to have to agree that D&D isn't a very good vehicle for S&S gaming.

If, OTOH, you define S&S as I did above, then D&D is fantastic.


RC

 

[catsclaw227]

I haven't read through the essays you linked to, so take my comments with that in mind.

It sounds here to me like you are redefining what Sword & Sorcery and High Fatasy are to help support your claims. Personally, High Fantasy has little to do with Christianity, any more than Sword and Sorcery has to do with Atheism.

Conan, Elric, Fafhrd & Grey Mouser... each are icons of Sword & Sorcery literature (though Elric COULD be considered High Fantasy, as there seems to be more fantastical than grim & gritty.) But their stories had just as many elements that made sense in 4e as elements that would only be found in OD&D games. And each were rife with Gods. Good ones, Evil Ones and even indifferent ones. Ones that stayed out of the affairs of mortals and ones that were actively involved.

In my opinion, your non-exhaustive list are things that differentiate the gaming movements aren't any more important than the following are differentiations:

• Unified Mechanics vs. unrelated and inconsistent subsystems
• PCs follow/don't follow same rules as NPCs or other "DM" elements
• Structured real-world style Ecologies vs. Orcs bunking next to Shriekers next to lurkers and mimics in interconnecting stone 20x20 rooms.
• "I can only have an 16 in that stat?" vs "Awesome, a 14!"
• APs vs Sandbox vs Delves with Minis
• Narrativist vs Simulationist vs Gamist

And yet, NONE of these have anything to do wth High Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery by any definition of the terms that are commonly known by gamers.

We played high fantasy with AD&D back in 1978 and it worked just fine. And I have run a Swords & Sorcery style game with d20 and OGL games.

I guess, I just don't agree that we need to redefine these terms in an effort to (once again) create another divide between what is fun for two different groups.

Some like "old-school" style rulesets (and I really dislike that term) and some like the OGL edition or the current edition.

I guess what I am asking is...... What is the point of the exercise?

Between a recent Grognardia article and this one, I am starting to feel like there are people that are bent on driving a wedge deeper between disagreeing factions of our hobby.

I ask.... "To what end?"

 

[Doug McCrae]

Equating a difference in play goals/styles with a sense of 'entitlement' isn't helpful. In fact, it's a insult (not that I'm insulted, mind you, just sayin').

I think 'sense of entitlement' may or may not imply an insult, but it would be safer to say players have certain expectations regarding monster power levels and magic item frequency.

Which they have had in every edition. Modules had a recommended level. Monsters were more powerful on deeper dungeon levels. Gary counseled against both Monty Haul-ism and Killer DMing in the 1e DMG. d20 just codified it more.

 

[Krensky]

Well, first off the word you want is trope, not troupe. A troupe is a theater group, a trope is a literary theme, convention, or cliche.

As for your literary analysis, I think you got it wrong.

The protagonists of S&S stories won because they were the protagonists. S&S stories follow many of the same tropes as action movies. The protagonists may not be good guys but the antagonists are worse, violence, seducing beautiful women, and daring do solves all problems. Conan, Elric, Hawkmoon, et all win because they're the protagonists. Winning may be pyrrhic or just surviving, but they still enjoy massive amounts of plot protection.

The nature of morality in High Fantasy is correct, and there is a good bit of Judeo-Christian symbolism in the two earliest recognised works (OK, a lot), but the premise in the genre of good defeating evil is not inherently Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic. While the definition of good and evil changes, it's something inherent to the human condition.

As for S&S being atheistic, most of it's filled to the brim with gods. Made up gods, gods from real world faiths, sometimes even the Abrahamic god in normal form or some sacreligous inversion. Both HF and S&S gods can and often are interventionist, but they show up in a Deist fashion as well. Heck, in Lord of the Rings God isn't particularly invovled in the affairs of the world, Sauron, Gandalf and the rest are angels and fallen angels.

Then look at Solomon Kane. Fights evil, moral rectitude, Christian (Puritan to be precise), etc. It's been a while but I'm willing to be the man prayed and swore oaths to God. God may not have answered, but that has more to do with an interesting story then any beliefs Howard may have had. Plus, as the saying goes, God helps those who help themselves. The protagonist hacking his way through monsters to slay the evil priest is far more interesting a story then one praying to God who makes it all better. This is why Frodo has to carry the Ring and Aslan needs the kids.

 

[TerraDave]

Hmm.

There was a very consipcous attempt to move from a Sword and Sorcery "style" to a High Fantasy one in the mid 1980's, even before 2nd ed. And there have then been various reactions against that over the years, including within 2n ed (ie Dark Sun).

But I think the biggest dynamic has been, from early on, a desire to codify and bring more options into the game. Each edition has in turn absorbed some of these new elements and rejected or modified others, trying to reconcile playability with all the things that had come in the previous wave of supplements.

I think this dynamic of complicating then rationalizing is much more important then the literary influances, which from early on have been so wide ranging--pulp fantasy, tolkien, mythology, tv and movies (this is not new), comic books, history, non-rpg games....--that it is pretty easy to see a particular style or influance if you look hard enough. But one could also say that the game really had its own style that was a distinct form of fantasy.

Finally, as far as I can tell, player entitlment started as soon as people begin making their charecters. Reading EGG/Col Pladohs various article and posting over the years and others about his and other early campaign, he and other players (and he was a player as well as a DM) seemed to feel pretty entitled.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

*Keefe the Thief wanders over to ENworld, scanning the threads. Reads a thread with the title beginning "History - HF vs. S&S gaming..."*

"Why, Keefe," Keefe said to himself. "Look, its one of those threads. You know what you´ll find once you click on it. You´ll find:

a) An OP that is far too long too read.

b) Using ever concieveable way for emphasizing parts of the text: bold, italics, color, using them not in moderation but rather going for the limit.

c) Trying to press the complex, ever-changing development that D&D went through into two distinct, antagonistic camps/styles/ways.

d) Using lots of oversimplifications in the process.

e) Is leaning a lot into one of the two camps it creates, calling one camp the "true" camp, sadly forgotten by those who do not understand D&Ds **real** history.

f) Making lots of generalizations about thousands of D&D players by saying stuff like "most people don´t want to play X" etc.

e) Ending by stating something similar to this: "..and now you´ll have to see that X was always meant to be Y in D&D, except you didn´t understand that and that is why you´ve been doing far too much Z in your game!"

"Well, Keefe," Keefe said to himself. "Do we want to click on the thread?"
"Yes," answered Keefe. "They are always so much fun."

 

[Obryn]

I think you're using the terms "Swords & Sorcery" and "High Fantasy" in ways that are different from how most of us understand the terms.

Specifically, there's nothing that's Swords & Sorcery about your list. Howard's Conan stories pretty much set the genre, and others like Lieber have made some excellent contributions. There's nothing about those stories which emphasizes random encounters or save-or-die mechanics. They're also written for story - they're far from story-less. Finally, the heroes most certainly do enjoy plot protection, given that they are the main characters in a series of adventures, and the author has a vested interest in both their success and their survival.

I know what you're getting at, but your terminology is incongruent. You're taking elements common to old-school gaming, but renaming them sword & sorcery, and I'm puzzled as to why - other than, without it, you would have less reason to write an article pioneering your view as somehow different or innovative. In short, you're renaming the old-school vs. new-school camps without actually adding anything to the distinctions on either side.

Also - too much bold, font size changes, and colored text. It makes your wall o' text look a little like crazy timecube ranting. Throwing religious arguments into it does, too.

-O

 

[jdrakeh]

There has been a big push in the 'old school' community to equate older editions of D&D with Swords & Sorcery genre fiction, but most of the people making that push either aren't very familiar with Swords & Sorcery genre fiction* or have completely redefined the term "Swords & Sorcery" to encompass mechanical conventions of D&D that are not commonly represented in the genre fiction or, alternately, have nothing to do with it at all (e.g., magic as a common instrument of protagonists, frequent protagonist death, random monster encounters, etc).

Claims that Swords & Sorcery fiction is written from an Atheist worldview (a cursory glance at any Conan story or Fafhrd and Mouser fiction reveals a multitude of deities) or that protagonists don't have plot immunity (what was the name of that story where Conan dies, again?) denote unfamiliarity with the subject matter, IMO. Or, mayhap, a familiarity only with the new 'definitions' of Swords & Sorcery being 'taught' by the folks I mention above.

*In the past, I've seen many people pushing for this association claim that the primary defining tenets of Swords & Sorcery genre fiction are the simple presence of swords and magic.

 

[Remathilis]

Also, the idea that D&D emulates S&S and is a poor fit for HF is nearly certainly destroyed by anyone who ever ran a successful Dragonlance (HF), Forgotten Realms (HF) or Ravenloft (Gothic Fantasy*) D&D game.


* Gothic Fantasy actually is a good example of both S&S and HF as the OP defines it living in harmony. While the mortality rate in some GF is quite high and the danger level amped up so that spiders ARE lethal, most GF is VERY character/story driven, hence why most Ravenloft Darklords have better defined backstories than the PCs in the game. In fact, many of RL's mechanics are designed to give plot-immunity to the MONSTERS, not the PCs, which (if we assume true) would lead us to the concept D&D gives an inordinate amount of "fair shakes" to the PCs in non-GF D&D (else why change the rules?)