Well, I guess it depends how broadly you define swords & sorcery fantasy. Spelljammer still has magic, monsters, wizards, elves, dragons, dwarves, and a semblance of medieval tech levels with warriors swinging swords and related weaponry. The twist is the ships in outer space thing, but it definitely still builds on core swords & sorcery ideas. That's why I'd file it firmly under "swords & sorcery fantasy with a twist" (and one that you may or may not like at that).
WotC setting search winner - Eberron
- Thread starter Hecatol
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
See my edited in P.S. comments in my last thread. I'm not sure I'd even agree that D&D is attempting to be sword & sorcery, although that's clearly a major element of the game, and always has been. Then again, epic "Tolkien-esque" fantasy has always played just as big a role, and the two don't necessarily combine easily, except that we've become very used to it after three decades of "the D&D genre."
Come on, it was built to reflect the work of Leiber, Moorcock, Howard, Vance, Tolkien etc. It's got swords & sorcery classes, magic, races, monsters, tech levels and setting assumptions. D&D is like a bunch of standard pulp swords & sorcery fantasy ideas put in a blender and set to "liquify". Of course D&D is swords & sorcery fantasy. What else could it possibly be? It's not generic fantasy, that's for sure - it's way too straightjacketed for that.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
I've never heard Tolkien described as swords & sorcery before. He's a very different genre than the pulp-ness of the other authors you list. Your definition of the genre is extremely loose, as near as I can tell -- presence of monsters, magic, and a vaguely medieval tech level = sword & sorcery?
I don't buy that.
I'm surprised you haven't; to most people Tolkien seems to be the very definition of swords & sorcery fantasy.
I find it difficult to relate to your narrow definition of swords & sorcery fantasy, just as you find it difficult to relate to the "extremely loose" nature of mine. I find it very difficult to believe that you don't associate monsters, magic and a medieval tech level with something that's looking very much like it might be a swords & sorcery fantasy setting, too - guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
Fantasy fantasy?
I'm beginning to get confused. I thought "swords & sorcery" was another name for the "fantasy" genre?
So, for me "swords & sorcery fantasy", is just "fantasy fantasy".
The only other distinctions of fantasy I regularliy run into is "high fantasy" and "low fantasy".
Where does sword & sorvery fit in as regards to the high versus low? I'd guess it's more high than low, but I'm not sure anymore.
Cheers!
M.
rounser said:
I'm beginning to get confused. I thought "swords & sorcery" was another name for the "fantasy" genre?
So, for me "swords & sorcery fantasy", is just "fantasy fantasy".
The only other distinctions of fantasy I regularliy run into is "high fantasy" and "low fantasy".
Where does sword & sorvery fit in as regards to the high versus low? I'd guess it's more high than low, but I'm not sure anymore.
Cheers!
M.
Desdichado
Hero
Who are these "most people" you refer to? Tolkien is very clearly not the same genre as Robert E. Howard or Fritz Leiber, and I've never come across anyone who's claimed such, at least if they were at all familiar with fantasy literature to begin with.
And if your definition of S&S is that broad, then I don't see the point of your whole discussion. There's nothing in the teaser we've seen for the setting as yet that would contradict such a loose definition of the genre. Then again, I'm struggling to imagine what would contradict it except for really oddball settings, like the aforementioend Dark Tower. Such a loosely defined genre isn't a very helpful definition, because it's too inclusive. If you say something is swords & sorcery, that doesn't evoke much more than the vaguest response with such a loose definition.
And if your definition of S&S is that broad, then I don't see the point of your whole discussion. There's nothing in the teaser we've seen for the setting as yet that would contradict such a loose definition of the genre. Then again, I'm struggling to imagine what would contradict it except for really oddball settings, like the aforementioend Dark Tower. Such a loosely defined genre isn't a very helpful definition, because it's too inclusive. If you say something is swords & sorcery, that doesn't evoke much more than the vaguest response with such a loose definition.
Desdichado
Hero
Re: Fantasy fantasy?
Swords & Sorcery is a specific brand of fantasy driven by pulp magazines, and includes authors of the Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, Lin Carter, etc. brand of writing. In many ways, the success of Tolkien's epic fantasy was the end of classic S&S -- very little has been published in a true S&S tone and formula since the 50s or 60s.
For reference, pick up any book on "how to write science fiction and fantasy" -- your local library should have several, I'd think. All of them clearly differentiate the sub genres.
That's apparently rounser's position here too, which brings that grand total of people I've met who define S&S as such to 2.Maggan said:
Swords & Sorcery is a specific brand of fantasy driven by pulp magazines, and includes authors of the Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, Lin Carter, etc. brand of writing. In many ways, the success of Tolkien's epic fantasy was the end of classic S&S -- very little has been published in a true S&S tone and formula since the 50s or 60s.For reference, pick up any book on "how to write science fiction and fantasy" -- your local library should have several, I'd think. All of them clearly differentiate the sub genres.
Last edited:
schporto
First Post
I'm wondering if it could just be DnD in current times. Greyhawk, FR, etc are all supposed to be set in 'medieval' times. OK. Take those add 1000 to 1500 years to get to today. But in a world with magic why would you ever develop steam power. Heck get the mage to permanently magic you wagon and you have a car for life. Hey that's cool. What if we joined em up. Then we'd have a caravan. Ohhhh join a bunch up and now we have a flying train. Heck I'd think just a few hundred years of magic would produce many advances that would more than mimic our current society. So there wouldn't be computers as we know. But phones could be magically made with message, permanance, and a little imagination. (Craft a magical wire that will carry a message use activated. Connect wire to wire at the switch board.)
And yeah the sword and sorcery could still exist. Although we'd probably bump back from 'today' to maybe 1700s? 1800s? To make it so the population not covering nigh every bit o' the planet.
Heck I've never understood how you could have some council of mages that didn't advance magical science more then it has been.
-cpd
And yeah the sword and sorcery could still exist. Although we'd probably bump back from 'today' to maybe 1700s? 1800s? To make it so the population not covering nigh every bit o' the planet.
Heck I've never understood how you could have some council of mages that didn't advance magical science more then it has been.
-cpd
Similar Threads
