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

[Saracenus]

To the OP,

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya:

"You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean"

That is all,

 

[Tigh]

D&D is so much more ...

d&d is so much more ...

it opened ears
the first hyper virus
lifted the taboo on representing god in the first person
​

Three great things sure, but D&D is so much more. Written after President Carter and the oil crunch, it was a time capsule to teach the realities of survival in a world without oil. Written for the day that we came back around to Carters perspective and accept that oil can fix the world or break the world but it can not last. So is it really so surprising there is a resurgence of old school D&D. Atheist and Christian alike are finding that their high fantasies of consequence free power are starting to feel hollow. And, that maybe some attention to a minimum level of decency may be in order.

Is D&D cowboy wisdom? No. Am I a survivalist? No. Am I an environmentalist? No.

D&D is a point based character development system. One wrapped around a premise that a dragon is guarding all the gold and if you defeat that dragon you can spend the gold as you see fit. People from the old school don't chuckle about how everyone in their party died for any less of a reason than it accurately reflects how difficult this task is. Particularly if one takes the analogy that gold is oil.

In the 80's, with the explosion of rpgs, sometimes the gold analogy was redefined to symbolize something else. In one setting the analogy was so well redefined that the physical presence of gold was removed from the game. But everyone still knew what the game was about. Sence then gold has suffered from creep. It no longer has any symbolic meaning in the games produced. The meaning is found elsewhere in less earthly physical terms.

But that unease is still there. The intangible is not such a sure escape from reality any more. People want to fly high still, but they are starting to analyze and pick at the minutia. Its almost like the edges of the garment are starting to frey and no one can find the hem.

So what is D&D. Are we unified. Are we divided against ourselves. I don't know. Everyone has their own vision of D&D now and I want to respect that. And now for my theory.

D&D is the emergence of role based society as opposed to the old class based society. Unfortunately it is called a role playing game but contains the word "classes" to categorize those roles. They should have been called roles.


Tigh

 

[Remathilis]

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.

But that's not a concern of genre but of delivery, right?

In High Fantasy, the plot dictates Frodo or Gollum's success.
In S&S, the plot dictates Conan's success.
In D&D, the game mechanics determine the PC's success.

Which makes the "genre" of fantasy D&D emulates a non-issue since the GAME element overrides any genre convictions the game might try to elmuate.

(Which kinda renders the OP's critique invalid: since success or failure determined by game mechanic knows no genre, c.f. World of Darkness, Star Wars, or Chuthulu are all clearly not S&S but yet effective RPGs)

 

[Ariosto]

Written after President Carter and the oil crunch

Not in this timeline, Doc!

 

[Tigh]

Not in this timeline, Doc!

Being off by a decade does not invalidate what d&d is. Carter didn't reach that position over night. Everyone already knew he was right. Politics won.

 

[Umbran]

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

TOS and TNG are analogous to S&S, yes, as far as my description goes. DS9, however, broke that mold to a large degree. B5 would be analogous to HF, yes.

I suppose Hercules and Xena would be S&S?

For purposes of this discussion, in terms of broad structure, yes.

The Buffy and Angel series were not fully HF, but were closer than Herc and Xena, for another example. Currently, Supernatural has progressed to the point where it had become HF.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Meh, A lot of words which seem to boil down to "I think modern D&D is about player 'entitlement', so I've decided to wrap my argument in bad literary criticism and inappropriate religosity.

Sandboxy, old-school worlds are all about sopping the player's entitlement of control of the story direction.

 

[M.L. Martin]

But that's not a concern of genre but of delivery, right?

In High Fantasy, the plot dictates Frodo or Gollum's success.
In S&S, the plot dictates Conan's success.
In D&D, the game mechanics determine the PC's success.

Which makes the "genre" of fantasy D&D emulates a non-issue since the GAME element overrides any genre convictions the game might try to elmuate.

(Which kinda renders the OP's critique invalid: since success or failure determined by game mechanic knows no genre, c.f. World of Darkness, Star Wars, or Chuthulu are all clearly not S&S but yet effective RPGs)

Actually, those examples contain an interesting combination of how mechanics and theme can intersect in ways similar to the OP's post.

World of Darkness is focused around the character's dealing with life in a horrific world, so it contains means by which characters can quantify personal development and overrule mechanical impacts on their personality (Morality and Willpower).

Star Wars is a game of Epic Space Fantasy where the heroes are favored by the Force, so important characters can use Character, Force and/or Destiny points to help control the direction of the story and the outcome of specific actions.

Call of Cthulhu is very thematically similar to some flavors of Swords & Sorcery--man is alone in a hostile universe--so it doesn't include much in the way of player control of the story.

Old-school D&D, if one plays with '3d6 straight down, let the dice fall where they may', and so forth, is a game of trying to survive in an uncaring universe. Dramatic or moral concerns don't enter into it. I must say, I was seriously disappointed when I found out 4E's Action Points were limited to 'take an extra turn,' rather than providing more outcome or narrative control.

I'd like to thank Ariosto and the old-school movement for reminding me that while I like a lot of D&D fluff, I'm not that big on the game itself.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is D&D cowboy wisdom? No.

Eh, Keep on the Borderlands, frontier town, what's the diff?

 

[Ariosto]

In High Fantasy, the plot dictates Frodo or Gollum's success.
In S&S, the plot dictates Conan's success.
In D&D, the game mechanics determine the PC's success.

Unless it's Tracy Hickman's version of D&D.

Maybe the difference between TSR's Dragonlance modules and TSR's Conan RPG is just coincidence. Maybe it's just coincidence how subgenre preferences and rules preferences sort out. Maybe it's just coincidence that the rise of dramatic structure and plot protection in D&D corresponded with the rise of HF and decline of S&S in publishing. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Or maybe a game of careless equanimity and random demises, of thieving and slaughtering adventurers motivated by lust for gold and glory and personal power, of "gods" treated as notably tough but killable monsters, and so on ... is perhaps a bit more in keeping with one side of the spectrum than the other?