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

[Remathilis]

but the list is dominated by works that most critics and genre authors would categorize as S&S, horror or "weird tale", SF, or some other category of adventure fiction distinct in theme and temperament from the "high fantasy" of Tolkien. Gygax has indicated that he much preferred The Hobbit to TLOTR.

Poul Anderson is S&S?

And while Gygax's list is a great insight into his mindset and reading material as of AD&D's publication, I think it downplays the inspiration drawn from other elements of literature. While I don't see Beowulf, Le Mort de Arthur, Dracula, Frankenstein, 1,001 Arabian Nights or any Greek Mythology on that list, I doubt anyone could create a rationale argument AGAINST their influence on D&D.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Some more thoughts now that I have more time . . .

D&D is fundamentally a hodgepodge, yes; Old Geezer over on RPG.net (one of Those Who Were There At The Beginning) has said repeatedly that "we made up some [stuff] that we thought would be cool." The cleric, for example, came out of the desire to create a counter to another player's dominating vampire PC, and the Tolkienian races made it into the game because the players pestered Gygax for them.

For all that hodgepodge, though, I do get the impression that the sword & sorcery elements were Gygax's primary information, and thus form the 'baseline' of the game, influencing more than they were influenced. However, that hodgepodge and the growth of the game also added new genre elements.

I'm going to refer to another game here for some genre definitions. My copy of Fantasy Hero, Fifth Edition defines the following as tropes of the Sword & Sorcery genre:
[

• "Barbarism is the Natural State of Mankind"
• Magic, Slow and Difficult
• Lack of Heroism (heroism based on survival and ability, not attitude or conduct)
• Only the Tough Survive
• Short-Term Thinking
• Show Me The Money
• The Perspective is: Neutral ("Heroes survive through toughness, skill and wits, not because the world tilts in their favor.")

The first doesn't show up so much in D&D, and the second and fourth are arguable, but the other elements seem to match very well with 'old school' D&D.

Now, for comparison's sake, here's the lists for Epic Fantasy and High Fantasy from the same volume.

Epic Fantasy contains:

• Free Will and Fate
• Heroic Qualities and Preserving the Good
• High Stakes and Powerful Enemies
• The Naive Hero
• The Natural World
• A Richly-Developed, Well-Ordered World
• Starkly-Drawn Characters
• A Tragic Note
• Wise and Powerful Wizards
• The Perspective is: Subtly Beneficient. "Through nobility, valor, heroic determination, and heroic sacrifice, [heroes] can triumph--the 'rules' of the world set things up so that, if sufficiently motivated, they can win despite the odds against them."

High Fantasy, by contrast, includes:

• Dungeons
• Gods Walk The Earth
• Monsters and Fantastic Creatures
• Planar Travel
• A Plethora of Races
• The Perspective Is: Neutral, though slightly titled towards the heroes

Now, FH says that 'High Fantasy' is largely defined by D&D, and the list of elements bears that out. so it would appear that D&D can't be S&S, right?

Using these definitions as a starting point, it is entirely possible for a game to contain strong elements of both High Fantasy and Swords & Sorcery--or, by contrast, High Fantasy and Epic Fantasy. The elements of High Fantasy are largely setting elements, while Swords & Sorcery and Epic Fantasy are defined more by thematic and characterization elements. Therefore, High Fantasy can overlap with either genre. I would submit that D&D, at least as envisioned by the 'old school', is High Fantasy built on a Swords & Sorcery base.

But what about those who use the game for something that would be more 'pure' High Fantasy, or a High/Epic Fantasy cross? That, I think, can be explained by the looseness and evolution of the game.

As mentioned, D&D started out as a hodgepodge--one that I submit had a Swords & Sorcery baseline, but added in a lot of other elements, some of which (paladins in particular come to mind) are more High or Epic Fantasy. In addition, the game up through 1E at least was written for an audience that was assumed to be familiar with fantasy, so Gygax didn't spend much time trying to write in Sword & Sorcery play--it seems to have been more assumed than enforced. As the audience shifted, the game shifted with it. I have to wonder how much of the more story-oriented, hero-oriented elements of late 1E and 2E arise from a generation of gamers who grew up on Star Wars, which is very much Epic Fantasy with space opera trappings.

 

[Ariosto]

In fact, all of us tend to get ample helpings of fantasy when we are very young, from fairy tales such as those written by the Brothers Grimm and Andrew Lang. This often leads to reading books of mythology, paging through bestiaries, and consultation of compilations of the myths of various lands and peoples. Upon such a base I built my interest in fantasy, being an avid reader of all science fiction and fantasy literature since 1950. ... but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped shape the form of the game.

(I made that part bold for emphasis.)

Yes, Poul Anderson unabashedly wrote "sword and sorcery" and was a founding member of the Swordsmen and Sorcerers' Guild of America (SAGA).
​

 

[Remathilis]

(I made that part bold for emphasis.)

Yes, Poul Anderson unabashedly wrote "sword and sorcery" and was a founding member of the Swordsmen and Sorcerers' Guild of America (SAGA).
​

Hugh. 3H&3L didn't strike me as S&S, but then again, you wouldn't necessarily peg Stephen King as horror if all you read was The Green Mile...

 

[Doug McCrae]

• "Barbarism is the Natural State of Mankind"
• Magic, Slow and Difficult
• Lack of Heroism (heroism based on survival and ability, not attitude or conduct)
• Only the Tough Survive
• Short-Term Thinking
• Show Me The Money
• The Perspective is: Neutral ("Heroes survive through toughness, skill and wits, not because the world tilts in their favor.")

The first doesn't show up so much in D&D, and the second and fourth are arguable, but the other elements seem to match very well with 'old school' D&D.

I really don't think the second is arguable. Magic in D&D has never been anything like Conan. It's flashbang, combat magic from the rarer, more modern S&S stories such as the Dying Earth where the nerdy wizard gets to be the hero.

3 and 5-7 definitely apply to the Cugel the Clever stories mind you. Definitely not 1 though, Vance's heroes are wordy and super-civilized.

 

[Ariosto]

To conclude that D&D was not heavily influenced by S&S because the writers of a Hero Games product call it "high fantasy" -- when those writers, in what now becomes a circular argument, define the term by D&D -- would be most fantastic indeed! Nor is a definition of S&S that excludes Vance's (or Michael Shea's) picaresques likely to pass muster in any more serious venue.

One would do better to consult the highly respected Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute, et al.

Flashing Swords - Interviews - Bill King
is an interview with Warhammer writer William King that may suggest how people in the field view the subgenre.

 

[nightwyrm]

Sword and Sorcery fiction is, in part, characterized by being episodic, as opposed to being strongly arced. The main character really doesn't change all that much from one story to the next, other than perhaps a general rise in station.

Hmm...interesting. So Star Trek is S&S and Babylon 5 is HF?

Forgive me for using scifi examples, but I don't really know any TV series examples for fantasy...well, I suppose Hercules and Xena would be S&S?

 

[M.L. Martin]

To conclude that D&D was not heavily influenced by S&S because the writers of a Hero Games product call it "high fantasy" -- when those writers, in what now becomes a circular argument, define the term by D&D -- would be most fantastic indeed! Nor is a definition of S&S that excludes Vance's (or Michael Shea's) picaresques likely to pass muster in any more serious venue.

One would do better to consult the highly respected Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute, et al.

Flashing Swords - Interviews - Bill King
is an interview with Warhammer writer William King that may suggest how people in the field view the subgenre.

My apologies if the post was rambling and unclear, and for using an unapproved source for listing genre elements. Yes, D&D is founded on Swords & Sorcery--but it has a lot of elements that are not Swords & Sorcery, in play it often produces a genre distinct from (if overlapping with) Swords & Sorcery, and in many cases, especially during the 2E era, it was presented and played without S&S elements.

"Old school" D&D is decidedly S&S--but I think that's as much a reaction against the High/Epic Fantasy flavor of 2E, and the High Fantasy flavor of 3E and 4E, as it is 'the way the game is supposed to be.'

Or, we could just admit the game is the Platonic Form of Swords & Sorcery, that it should only be played in that One True Way, and start purging it of all heretics and unbelievers. I offer myself as the first victim for the Committee for Proper Gaming to send to the guillotine.

 

[Krensky]

Hmm...interesting. So Star Trek is S&S and Babylon 5 is HF?

Forgive me for using scifi examples, but I don't really know any TV series examples for fantasy...well, I suppose Hercules and Xena would be S&S?

No, they would be a form of Sword and Sandal. Mythic Fantasy might be a good term.

S&S shows... Galtar and the Golden Lance?

 

[Ariosto]

Matthew, that is not the point at all as far as I can see.

The point (I think) is that the rules of old D&D make no presumption as to whether it is Frodo or Gollum who falls into the Crack of Doom; the dice decide. It is thus unsurprising that people who desired a game governed instead by the rules of drama found D&D unsatisfactory, and that TSR and WotC altered the game in conformance with those desires.