Sword and Sorcery has been done to death.

[ssampier]

I think it's good to "think outside the box" of traditional D&D or as you say "sword and sorcery". I'm not a writer, but as a Dungeon Master I try to accomodate both my wants and my players needs.

As a writer, I don't believe you'd be bound necessarily by players wants, as long as the settings if fun and offers variety (ie Psionics heavy, but leaves options open if a player doesn't want be a psion).

Let us know when you're book is finished, so some of us can pick-it up. Psionics are not usually my cup-of-tea, but I have surprised myself before (I loved Dark Sun, just not the wonky 2nd edition rules).

BTW, isn't Steam and Steel trying to differentiate itself from traditional D&D as well? Or even the Mechamancy, incorporating magic driven clockwork creatures (which I really want to pickup!).

 

[Agback]

Sword & Sorcery is axe swinging warriors, spellcasters, monsters and fantasical psedo-medieval worlds. Whats the difference there between that and Fantasy?

I'd like to recommend some books to you

Neil Gaiman's Stardust, Roberta MacAvoy's The Grey Horse, Damiano, and Tea with the Black Dragon, Barry Hughart's Bridge of Birds, Marion Bradley's Mists of Avalon. All excellent books. All fantasy. No axe-swinging warriors, few spellcasters, precious few monsters, no pseudo-mediaeval worlds. Fantasy is indeed far broader than swords & sorcery.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

In one sense, I "feel you" but on the other hand...I still can't stop reading Robert E. Howard and Clark Ashton Smith.

Ultimately however, I'm still waiting for psychedelic fantasy gaming...but I'm guessing much of that is illegal. Unless you're in England and you can buy magic mushrooms.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

I'd love to hear more about this thing you're writing - or want to write - or whatever. I personally like psionics.

BTW, try reading Neil Gaiman's books...

 

[S'mon]

If you define all fantasy as S&S, I guess S&S is overdone. Personally I think if anything there's too little S&S around, as compared to Forgotten Realmsian style fantasy which is very un-S&S in feel. Wilderlands is pretty S&S, the Conan RPG is hardcore S&S, otherwise what?

 

[barsoomcore]

Dear sir:

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[tetsujin28]

Dear sir:

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

And I wish to subscribe to yours. I believe a mutual admiration society is in order

 

[MonsterMash]

If you define all fantasy as S&S, I guess S&S is overdone. Personally I think if anything there's too little S&S around, as compared to Forgotten Realmsian style fantasy which is very un-S&S in feel. Wilderlands is pretty S&S, the Conan RPG is hardcore S&S, otherwise what?

I agree with this. I think that S&S has a pretty clear definition in common use which is Howardian fantasy, with fairly low use of magic, grim settings (no Elminster coming to bail you out and the gods as uncaring), heroes needing to survive using their wits as well as brawn and a lot of areas based on semi-historical versions of earth cultures.

To me the key S&S authors are Howard and Leiber. Tolkien is an epic fantasy writer where the plot concerns world changing events (not always the case with Conan for example), magic is unusual and dangerous to users as it attracts the attention of the dark forces, most D&D is as has been said high fantasy.

I'd like to see a good planetary romance game (actually I do have Iron Lords of Jupiter so there is a good attempt at it available).

There is no reason not to write the setting and or rules that you want, but there is no reason that says anyone else will want it or like it.

 

[ecliptic]

Psionics is overpowered and it sucks.

 

[tetsujin28]

Psionics is overpowered and it sucks.

I've heard half-orcs and rangers got the shaft, too.