Sword and Sorcery has been done to death.

[JoeGKushner]

Now, I'm mad. I'm mad for listening to other people. I'm mad for kowtowing at what they wanted and I was producing sucky stuff. I'm MAD at being impotent because I was "listening" to other people instead of doing what I wanted in my heart.

Well, if you're the GM and no one wants to play there, what's the point of going through all that hassel? On one hand, you couldd tell them nothing and let them be surprised...

Now I don't know what you consider Swords & Sorcery, but Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron, are not it. They are all High Fantasy. Black Company has some elements of S&S but really, only Conan is doing S&S right now. Other games by the very nature of their pure d20 engine are too high powered in terms of magic and magic items to be S&S proper.

 

[Thanee]

And if any of you people-who-think-3.5e-psionics-is-overpowered-or-sucks are going to try and stop me, well then, that for you! >snaps fingers<

Not think... know... some of them, anyways, but other than that, I think that they can nonetheless be quite enjoyable to some people, those who like the flavor (and those who don't care as long as it's overpowered ), that is.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Andre]

Well, if you're the GM and no one wants to play there, what's the point of going through all that hassel?

Yeah, that was the point I took from the rant - Sir Elton wants a particular type of game, his players don't. In that case, he should feel free to vent all he wants (venting is healthy, to a point), but shouldn't waste his time creating a world that fits only his expectations of the game. An RPG requires considerable cooperation among the players and GM or it tends to fall apart, leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. If Sir Elton's players don't want to play that type of game, he's better off finding other players for it or being a player in someone else's game.

Thankfully, long gone are the days when GM's said "It's my game and I'm god - whatever I say happens." The game belongs to the GM and players alike (at least, the good games do).

 

[DragonLancer]

Now I don't know what you consider Swords & Sorcery, but Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron, are not it. They are all High Fantasy. Black Company has some elements of S&S but really, only Conan is doing S&S right now. Other games by the very nature of their pure d20 engine are too high powered in terms of magic and magic items to be S&S proper.

I see this banded about on these boards quite often. To me, Sword & Sorcery and Fantasy are the same thing. Fantasy can apply to more than D&D-style novels/movies...etc, thats true, but GH, FR and other D&D settings (as mentioned above) are still Sword & Sorcery. Conan does not have the market on that.

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


And Elton, if you want something different to regular settings then write it. Don't listen to anyone else.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Sword & Sorcery is dudes killing each other in a dark age setting with magic often taking a long time, being very rare, and almost never of the "boom" type.

Conan does not survive fireballs. He does not survive lightning bolts. He survives illusions and mental attacks that try to sap his will.

Swords & Sorcery and High Fantasy are NOT the same thing. Some may consider them that, but in any real world historical context in terms of their origins and pacing, they are not.

 

[Psion]

Edgar Rice Burroughs Princess of Mars is nominally science-based, but for the most part the science is so woolly it might as well be magic.

Precisely.

Elton has been participating in another thread in which someone, upon having me sum up Darkover (which uses the "Lost Colony" fantasy paradigm, like Pern and The Darkfire Trilogy), described it as "sounding like science fiction."

Which is laughable.

 

[Thanee]

Is there actually some sort of list of "genre defining traits" somewhere?

Why not start a thread about that... listing the various genres and their traits.

CLICK

Bye
Thanee

 

[sword-dancer]

<rant>


What's more sick is that many are based off tolkien's work. I realized how sick I really was on the sword and sorcery genre of world settings when I was writing down my current project. </rant>

Tolkkien is Epic Fantasy not S&S, S&S is dark, grim, and only the strong in Mind and optional body survive it`s dangers.
Conan, Elric, and so on: Conan,Kull and Bran are Howards take of the cthulhu Mythos,Magic is a dark ruinous power fuelled by blood sacrifices, blasphemy "I will feast on her soul"
Or Elric who made a Pact with a chaos Lord,

I'm going try experimenting with ground that hasn't been covered since the Deryni novels and Darkover novels.

Then the blue rose from Green Ronin may be interesting for you, even if they are more inspirated by Mercedes Lackey and Diane Duane.
http://bluerose.greenronin.com/

 

[Sir Elton]

Cool. But I think it sounds like the problem is mostly with the decision you allowed yourself to make. That being, to let other people tell you what kind of game to run when you had your heart set on something else.

Or, in this case, write.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Yeah, that was the point I took from the rant - Sir Elton wants a particular type of game, his players don't. In that case, he should feel free to vent all he wants (venting is healthy, to a point), but shouldn't waste his time creating a world that fits only his expectations of the game. An RPG requires considerable cooperation among the players and GM or it tends to fall apart, leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth. If Sir Elton's players don't want to play that type of game, he's better off finding other players for it or being a player in someone else's game.

Thankfully, long gone are the days when GM's said "It's my game and I'm god - whatever I say happens." The game belongs to the GM and players alike (at least, the good games do).

I disagree. More and more, I believe a strong GM and a strong world vision is necessary for a good game. While I do not balk at player input IF it supports the world the GM has in mind, I am opposed to players lording over a game as if they ever put in an amount of work proportional to the GM. Yes, "I'm god" GMs can be a nuisance, but I find them miles more agreeable than "Yes, ma'am" GMs who run what the players want and then bicker about it afterwards.