# Discussing Sword & Sorcery and RPGs



## Yora (Jul 12, 2021)

(The attempt to have a discussion about practical gamemaster advice for adventures and not debate the definition of Sword & Sorcery for the umpteenth time again failed as immediately and thoroughly as all Sword & Sorcery threads always do. Another attempt is being made here. This thread is now about debating the definition of Sword & Sorcery.)

Sword & Sorcery is a somewhat old fashioned style of heroic fantasy that is primarily really just a somewhat more specific style of aesthetics and tone. While there's been a good number of RPGs in recent decades that bill themselves as Sword & Sorcery games, most are rally just regular D&D without elves, dwarves, and clerics.

If you look around the internet, you can find a number of discussions that popped up over the years on what you need for a Sword & Sorcery campaign, and it's generally always the same list of established conventions, that oddly enough doesn't actually match with many of the classic stories that are considered foundational to the style. "Humans only, no spellcasters, no alignment, but the PCs should also all be pretty evil". Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

But let us say you have established your setting and think it feels sufficiently swordly and sorcerous. And you have your dusty starting town on the edge of the monster infested wilderness and your party of badass PCs. *What happens now?*

What kind of stories do we actually tell in a Sword & Sorcery campaign? We have a couple of classic elements that feel very much at home in the Sword & Sorcery style. Evil wizards, brutal warlords, ruined cities, piles of gold and jewels, demons, undead, giant spiders, giant snakes, giant apes, and frogs. But none of this is exactly unusual in any other styles of fantasy either. (Except the frogs.)

Sword & Sorcery has three main characteristic traits, which are protagonist who exist outside the normal structure of society and its rules, act on their own initiative and their own personal reasons, and who deal with any obstacles by taking decisive action. It's not the only definition of Sword & Sorcery, but I think few people would deny these traits to be typical elements of the style.
From what, we can postulate three things to keep in mind when running adventures that aim to evoke a feeling of Sword & Sorcery: 1) The PCs should not be bound to do anything by duty or obligation, 2) the PCs need to have their own stakes in whatever is going on, and 3) the GM should keep pressure on the players to do something and not give them any more than only a reasonable amount of time to discuss their next steps.

The first two are where I see some challenges pop up. When the PCs should have their own stakes in what is going on, but they also should be free agents and wildcards, how do you set up the hook to get them involved in the first place?


----------



## univoxs (Jul 12, 2021)

An element I think of in Sword & Sorcery is actually Sword vs Sorcery. In classic stories magic is often inherently evil. Another thing I think of is cults that venerate some enormous fauna. Sword & Sorcery might also lean heavily on the anti-hero as well and might be what made Conan unique.


----------



## Yora (Jul 12, 2021)

univoxs said:


> Sword & Sorcery might also lean heavily on the anti-hero as well and might be what made Conan unique.



While the last part can certainly be debated, what does this mean for a GM preparing an adventure?


----------



## aco175 (Jul 12, 2021)

Sword and Sorcery (S&S) seems to have more a B-movie feel to it than a fantasy feel.  Back in the 80s when a lot of these came about I feel that they had a limited budget or based it off something established like Conan or a quasi historical Earth to keep it simple.  Most seem to have limited PC development and alignment variables that gave them more bravado.  

Classic movies like Conan and a few others like Sword and the Sorcerer, Beastmaster, Excalibur, and  Dragonslayer all seem to follow similar paths.  You can even add a few space movies into the mix.  I think they are a great, easy campaign for lots of fun.  

I would have no problem adding elves and dwarves into the mix.  I think it would allow for more simple storylines like an elf overlord that rulled for the last 1,000 years or a dwarf overlord that protects his mines and his Arkenstone.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 12, 2021)

Yora said:


> What kind of stories do we actually tell in a Sword & Sorcery campaign? We have a couple of classic elements that feel very much at home in the Sword & Sorcery style. Evil wizards, brutal warlords, ruined cities, piles of gold and jewels, demons, undead, giant spiders, giant snakes, giant apes, and frogs. But none of this is exactly unusual in any other styles of fantasy either. (Except the frogs.)
> 
> Sword & Sorcery has three main characteristic traits, which are protagonist who exist outside the normal structure of society and its rules, act on their own initiative and their own personal reasons, and who deal with any obstacles by taking decisive action. It's not the only definition of Sword & Sorcery, but I think few people would deny these traits to be typical elements of the style.




So ... I'm not sure you're going to get full agreement on these points. _Classic_ (OD&D, early AD&D and B/X) D&D, for example is often considered more S&S, yet has elves, dwarves, and other "Tokien-esque" high fantasy flourishes.

It helps to start with the classic canon of S&S in terms of literature; as is well-know, this was a term coined by the giant of the field (and a foremost influence on D&D), Fritz Leiber in response to Michael Moorcock.

Here's what he said:
_I feel more certain than ever that this field should be called the sword-and-sorcery story. This accurately describes the points of culture-level and supernatural element and also immediately distinguishes it from the cloak-and-sword (historical adventure) story—and (quite incidentally) from the cloak-and-dagger (international espionage) story too!_

Borrowing from the wikpedia page, I think the following is helpful (my emphasis is added):
_Although many have debated the finer points, the consensus characterizes it with a bias toward fast-paced, action-rich tales set in a quasi-mythical or fantastical framework. Unlike high fantasy, the stakes in sword and sorcery tend to be personal, the danger confined to the moment of telling. Settings are typically exotic, and protagonists often morally compromised._


I think a few things can be immediately recognized when discussing S&S; first, like many genres in all art forms, it can be easy to define by certain specific examples (Conan? Yes. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? Yes), and it can be easy to define by specific counter-examples (Tolkien? No, that's high fantasy!), but because the borders are so nebulous, it is very difficult when it comes to "edge cases" or works that cross boundaries. Is the Amber series sword and sorcery (morally compromised characters, but both personal and immense stakes)?Moorcock is often cited as S&S (correctly I think), but it's hardly "regular guys fightin' against the magic". And so on.

Now, when you're moving from one medium (literature) to another medium (TTRPGs) and still employing the same label, it can be more difficult. As a general rule, I think "S&S" in D&D tends to refer to:
1. No "world-shaking events." In other words, the characters aren't saving the Forgotten Realms, or the multiverse. They are adventurers, making some coin, and maybe carving out a small part of the world for themselves.

2. Moral ambiguity. No, not an excuse of murder-hoboing. More that the "good guys" aren't necessarily good, and your characters are navigating a difficult world and making tough choices (in original D&D, you are, after all, tomb robbers). One way this was expressed, however stupidly, was the idea of "muscular neutrality" in early D&D. 

Those are the two most salient marks I would look for. In essence, if you are an adventure path in general, and certainly an AP to "do good and save the world" then you're aren't doing S&S.


----------



## Puddles (Jul 12, 2021)

One trope I like from Sword and Sorcery is *"society is decadent and corrupting"*, and I would probably use this to influence the quests and quest givers when designing a campaign.

For example, rather than have a starting town the party save from a looming threat. I would probably make the starting town a pretty horrible place, perhaps with a subjugated peoples, and I make the quest givers horrible people to boot. 

I would have the quest giver send them on morally dubious quests before they later betray the party at some point, perhaps by sending them into a fighting pit full of reptilian monstrosities instead of paying them their fee. Once the party have battled their way out of the fighting pit, they can fight that early quest giver and unwittingly emancipate the peoples of the town (hopefully making them anti-heroes in the process).


----------



## MGibster (Jul 12, 2021)

Yora said:


> While the last part can certainly be debated, what does this mean for a GM preparing an adventure?



I think it means that you can expect PCs to engage in behaviors that are usually not acceptable in most campaigns.   I'll stick with Conan since he's the poster child for sword & sorcery adventure so far as I'm concerned.  In various stories, Conan has been both pirate and bandit and in other games he'd be the villain the PCs were hired to guard the merchants against.  That doesn't mean Conan is bad all the time.  In one story he has to choose between saving the life of a woman or losing the fortune he worked so hard to attain and he chooses the former without complaint.  



Snarf Zagyg said:


> No "world-shaking events." In other words, the characters aren't saving the Forgotten Realms, or the multiverse. They are adventurers, making some coin, and maybe carving out a small part of the world for themselves.



I've got a campaign idea kicking around in my head for a Conan campaign and this is a rule I'm following.  The premise is that the PCs, or their loved ones, have been wronged by a powerful sorceress and are seeking her throughout Hyborea to exact their vengeance.  There's no world shaking event here and defeating this sorceress won't save the world.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 12, 2021)

univoxs said:


> An element I think of in Sword & Sorcery is actually Sword vs Sorcery. In classic stories magic is often inherently evil. Another thing I think of is cults that venerate some enormous fauna. Sword & Sorcery might also lean heavily on the anti-hero as well and might be what made Conan unique.



Not sure. I think that we tend to equate Sword & Sorcery with predominately Conan while forgetting that the term Sword & Sorcery came from a conversation between Moorcock and Lieber to describe their stories. Although Elric and Corum certainly had swords and axes, neither were hardly Sword vs. Sorcery. 

Edit: I came to say what @Snarf Zagyg did.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 12, 2021)

I think one subtle element is that the setting is just that: it's scenery, a backdrop. The protagonists don't have much emotional attachment to the world around them, and they're definitely not there to change it. They interact with their immediate surroundings, they're not concerned with the past or the future or anything that's happening further away than the reach of their axe.

It's just that very interesting things tend to happen within that reach.


----------



## univoxs (Jul 12, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Not sure. I think that we tend to equate Sword & Sorcery with predominately Conan while forgetting that the term Sword & Sorcery came from a conversation between Moorcock and Lieber to describe their stories. Although Elric and Corum certainly had swords and axes, neither were hardly Sword vs. Sorcery.
> 
> Edit: I came to say what @Snarf Zagyg did.



I agree, Conan is just an easy thing to point to and does not always typify the genre for everyone. Conan is what comes to mind for me but not the original books, though I have read them, but actually my mind goes to 70s DC Conan comics which usually leaned toward more monster of the week fare.


Yora said:


> While the last part can certainly be debated, what does this mean for a GM preparing an adventure?



As a GM I would prepare an open world style and give the party multiple avenues they can solve a situation. I would expect them to both return the mcguffin to its rightful owner as well as keep it for themselves. Characters often get ripped off by dubious allies, I would give them the opportunity for bloody revenge. They should be able to hand out justice as they see fit even if it means assasinating a local king they disagree with.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 12, 2021)

univoxs said:


> I agree, Conan is just an easy thing to point to and does not always typify the genre for everyone. Conan is what comes to mind for me but not the original books, though I have read them, but actually my mind goes to 70s DC Conan comics which usually leaned toward more monster of the week fare.



I used to love those Conan comics when I was a kid and I started reading them again last year for adventure inspiration.  You could do much worse than those comics for S&S adventure ideas.  I started reading a few of the original stories back in 2019, and it kind of surprised me much Conan was behaving like an old school AD&D character by looking for secret compartments and hidden passages while looking for treasure.


----------



## Yora (Jul 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So ... I'm not sure you're going to get full agreement on these points. _Classic_ (OD&D, early AD&D and B/X) D&D, for example is often considered more S&S, yet has elves, dwarves, and other "Tokien-esque" high fantasy flourishes.



Does this reply to the paragraph you quoted?

Would you say that characters who are 1) bound by social obligations and vows of allegiance, 2) solve other people's problems as a disinterested party, and 3) overcome their challenges by thorough research and cunning diplomacy make for good protagonists in a Sword & Sorcery story?


Puddles said:


> One trope I like from Sword and Sorcery is *"society is decadent and corrupting"*, and I would probably use this to influence the quests and quest givers when designing a campaign.
> 
> For example, rather than have a starting town the party save from a looming threat. I would probably make the starting town a pretty horrible place, perhaps with a subjugated peoples, and I make the quest givers horrible people to boot.
> 
> I would have the quest giver send them on morally dubious quests before they later betray the party at some point, perhaps by sending them into a fighting pit full of reptilian monstrosities instead of paying them their fee. Once the party have battled their way out of the fighting pit, they can fight that early quest giver and unwittingly emancipate the peoples of the town (hopefully making them anti-heroes in the process).



I am generally in agreement with that. In Sword & Sorcery, you don't generally have a happy peaceful starting situation that is being disrupted by an outside force and an expectation that the protagonists will set things right by returning them back to the status quo.
Though I'd be very careful to use betrayal sparingly and for times where it will have strong impact. If the first two people the PCs work for both betray them, you send the players the message to never take on any jobs. I think that can cause a lot of problems further down the road.
But I think it can be pretty neat to have NPCs try to cheat the PCs out of money rather than stabbing them in the back. For example, a merchants appearing unhappy when the party shows up to claim their reward because he didn't expect to actually have to pay the money he promised.


MGibster said:


> I've got a campaign idea kicking around in my head for a Conan campaign and this is a rule I'm following.  The premise is that the PCs, or their loved ones, have been wronged by a powerful sorceress and are seeking her throughout Hyborea to exact their vengeance.  There's no world shaking event here and defeating this sorceress won't save the world.



I'd been toying with just such an idea myself last months. A party united by a common oath to find and slay that evil wizard who wronged them should work pretty well.


Dioltach said:


> I think one subtle element is that the setting is just that: it's scenery, a backdrop. The protagonists don't have much emotional attachment to the world around them, and they're definitely not there to change it. They interact with their immediate surroundings, they're not concerned with the past or the future or anything that's happening further away than the reach of their axe.
> 
> It's just that very interesting things tend to happen within that reach.



There's a couple of neat Sword & Sorcery stories that happen pretty much entirely as disruptions while the protagonists are traveling between A and B.


univoxs said:


> As a GM I would prepare an open world style and give the party multiple avenues they can solve a situation. I would expect them to both return the mcguffin to its rightful owner as well as keep it for themselves. Characters often get ripped off by dubious allies, I would give them the opportunity for bloody revenge. They should be able to hand out justice as they see fit even if it means assasinating a local king they disagree with.



I think it's a vastly superior way of running adventures in general, but for Sword & Sorcery it's absolutely mandatory to not have a script that demands that the PCs are going through specific scenes. Distrust and backstabbing is a big part of the game, as is sudden and unplanned violence. There's also both the thing of cutting your losses, and taking stupid risks just because you're really pissed at one guy in particular.
Even more than in other styles of fantasy, the journey is the destination. It needs to be a fun and exciting ride, and if at the end the heroes stand with nothing to show for their troubles, that's perfectly fine.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 12, 2021)

Yora said:


> Does this reply to the paragraph you quoted?
> 
> Would you say that characters who are 1) bound by social obligations and vows of allegiance, 2) solve other people's problems as a disinterested party, and 3) overcome their challenges by thorough research and cunning diplomacy make for good protagonists in a Sword & Sorcery story?




Sometimes. I don't think that characters are necessarily bound by social obligations or vows of allegiance for S&S. Sometimes it's the complete lack of those bonds. 

I also don't think that the necessarily overcome their problems through research or cunning diplomacy. Sometimes it's just a sword.

Finally, a character can be very involved as an interested party; revenge is not an uncommon motivator. Nevertheless, the disinterested mercenary is also a common trope. 

Yet you could have a good protagonist in a S&S setting that matches those three criteria, but also have one that has none of those.


----------



## Yora (Jul 12, 2021)

My point is that in Sword & Sorcery fiction, you usually see protagonist who can do what other can do, because they can afford to not give a naughty word what other powerful people think about it. Influential aristocrats, officers, and merchants often have their hands tied because their power lies within their status and reputation and the people who are on their good sides. Even when they know what's right and really want to do something, doing so would cost them dearly.
Barbarians, thieves, and dethroned archmage-emperors have no such issues. They have nothing to lose but their lives, and they are very capable of guarding that. If they piss of the wrong people, they can skip town. If they step outside of social boundaries, there is no status they can lose.

While it does not apply to all fantasy, Sword & Sorcery is inherently action adventures. You don't see the protagonists besting their opponents and winning conflicts in offices or meeting rooms. (Unless it's to behead the king on his own throne.) The heroes always go where the action is and will do what has to be done with their own hands. It may be by full out open assault or by stealth and cunning trickery, but they are always in the thick of it.

Which is why I am puzzled that any of this could be questioned or controversial.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 12, 2021)

Yora said:


> {snip}
> 
> Which is why I am puzzled that any of this could be questioned or controversial.




Well, if you're puzzled as to why your assertions would be _questioned_, on the internet, on a forum of geeks known for arguing discussing anything, including the smallest things ... well, I can't help you there!

If you are wondering why an attempt to define a specific _genre _would be controversial, it is for the same reason that all attempts are- and as I already outlined.

S&S came up due to an exchange between Lieber (who is S&S) and Moorcock (who is S&S) discussing Howard (who is S&S). However, despite similarities, even those three quintessential examples (Conan, Gray Mouser & Fafhrd, Elric) are very, very different. Which is why we have a term that is defined both by a grouping of certain works, and by excluding others (the contemporaneous high fantasy, like Tolkien, or the Chronicles of Prydain). 

More specifically, S&S arose out of a particular time (roughly from Howard through the 70s) and a conception of certain types of pulp literature and archetypes on fantasy fiction; it is very difficult to disentangle what aspects of all those stories are absolutely necessary for S&S, in the same way that (for example) we can discuss aspects of _film noir _with canonical examples (femme fatale, visual cues such as lack of balance in composition and unconventional lighting, private detective, etc.), and yet never come to a conclusion as to what exact elements constitute the genre in film ... let alone if we attempted to translate it ("I'm doing a film noir in D&D!").


----------



## univoxs (Jul 12, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I used to love those Conan comics when I was a kid and I started reading them again last year for adventure inspiration.  You could do much worse than those comics for S&S adventure ideas.  I started reading a few of the original stories back in 2019, and it kind of surprised me much Conan was behaving like an old school AD&D character by looking for secret compartments and hidden passages while looking for treasure.



You can't help but me impressed by the Buscema art. And silly me it was Marvel not DC. DC was doing D&D comics a little later. In particular Issue #41 of the original Marvel run of Conan is very good. Something happened in that issue that truly rattled Conan and came up again and again throughout that run.


----------



## ART! (Jul 12, 2021)

Yora said:


> The heroes always go where the action is and will do what has to be done with their own hands. It may be by full out open assault or by stealth and cunning trickery, but they are always in the thick of it.



Until things go pear-shaped, at which point they look to their best interests and bug out. Loyalty to some great cause - or even to one's faithful crew of pirates - only goes so far when your neck is on the line.


----------



## Yora (Jul 12, 2021)

Totally, but that's them deciding that their part in the adventure is over. They are not going to delegate the fighting to someone else or ask for a ceasefire to set up a meeting at the negotiating table.


Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, if you're puzzled as to why your assertions would be _questioned_, on the internet, on a forum of geeks known for arguing discussing anything, including the smallest things ... well, I can't help you there!
> 
> If you are wondering why an attempt to define a specific _genre _would be controversial, it is for the same reason that all attempts are- and as I already outlined.



But you don't seem to refute my claim either.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 12, 2021)

Yora said:


> But you don't seem to refute my claim either.




Can't help you there! 

Look, my last piece of advice on this thread:

1. If you want people to argue with you, have fun! There's plenty of people here for that. 

2. If you read what I wrote, and that's your response- you're looking for an argument, not a discussion. I'm not the best person for that.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jul 12, 2021)

I am more interested to know if there is stuff that is more fitting to our current world and does not include the "issues" that classic S&S stories have. Are people even writing and publishing new S&S stories?


----------



## Yora (Jul 12, 2021)

There has been a sort of "Sword & Sorcery Revival Movement" for a couple of years now, but mostly among fans with little getting actually published in that regard.

How is Sword & Sorcery less fitting for our current world?


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 12, 2021)

Right now I'm reading an anthology called Swords & Dark Magic, eds Jonathan Strakhan & Lou Anders (dedicated to Howard, Leiber and Moorcock), with stories by Steven Erikson, Glen Cook, Gene Wolfe, James Enge, C.J. Cherryh, K.J. Parker, Garth Nix, Michael Moorcock, Tim Lebbon, Robert Silverberg, Greg Keyes, Michael Shea, Scott Lynch, Tanith Lee, Caitlin R. Kiernan, Bill Willingham and Joe Abercrombie.

Although some of the stories stretch up the definition of S&S, and some are better than others, it's well worth a read to get an idea of where S&S is at right now.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jul 12, 2021)

Poking around a little, and while looking for newly published S&S stuff, I saw that Amazon classifies both the Game of Thrones and Wheel of Time books as S&S?


----------



## TimWest (Jul 12, 2021)

> What kind of stories do we actually tell in a Sword & Sorcery campaign?




For me part of it is about telling the story of characters making their way through a dangerous world. Even if they're not particularly goal oriented themselves, the nature of the environment means that 'adventure' will eventually come their way.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 12, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Poking around a little, and while looking for newly published S&S stuff, I saw that Amazon classifies both the Game of Thrones and Wheel of Time books as S&S?



I think genres exist in part to make it easier for publishers to market their books.  I can find Stephen King's _Dark Tower_ series in the horror section of most bookstores but isn't it a fantasy?  If _The Tommy Knockers_ or _The Running Man_ had been written by someone other than King/Bachman the odds are good you'd find them in the science fiction section today. I don't mean to suggest that genre classifications are useless. And there's always going to be some edge cases that are difficult to classify. But we should take them with a grain of salt at times.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 13, 2021)

To me, the defining aspect of Sword & Sorcery stories is their personal nature - the stories are small and local. I argue that I've never run anything BUT Sword & Sorcery adventures ever since I started playing D&D back in '95 or so.

Early in 5e, Sasquatch Game Studio produced the Primeval Thule Campaign Setting, which is most excellent and helps answer many of the "how to" questions about Sword & Sorcery games, especially from a 5e perspective.






						DriveThruRPG.com
					

Your one-stop online shop for new and vintage RPG products from the top publishers, delivered fresh to your desktop in electronic format.




					www.drivethrurpg.com


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

While I really do appreciate everyone's participation in this topic, I hope that we can keep the discussion on how to create and run fantasy RPG adventures that evoke the feel of Sword & Sorcery.
There have been many discussions about running Sword & Sorcery campaigns over the years, and they always devolved into the same discussion on how to define Sword & Sorcery. Which always comes down to exactly the same points everyone has always been making for the last decades. If anyone has new revelations to share about that, it's a discussion for a different topic. I think for the purpose of this thread, an elephant definition is sufficient: "It's really hard to describe, but I know it when I see it."

Or the specific definition of the man who introduced the term: "Howard, Leiber, and Moorcock, yes. Tolkien, no."


TimWest said:


> For me part of it is about telling the story of characters making their way through a dangerous world. Even if they're not particularly goal oriented themselves, the nature of the environment means that 'adventure' will eventually come their way.



While this is true, the challenge for the GM is how to make that eventually be in next week when the players return to play. Sword & Sorcery is generally not concerned with longer ongoing stories and happy to skip straight ahead to the moment that something interesting happens. Ideally, you get into the action within 5 minutes of play. But with the PCs being the masters of their own fates, and proactive initative by the players being desired, I think this is a point where the media of roleplaying and writing lead to different demands. The circumstances under which the PCs end up in an adventure can be skipped in a story, but are important parts of play.

Similarly, someting I have planned for my next campaign, is to strictly track the time of the campaign and the money of the PCs. These are things that are irrelevant in stories and are therefore ignored, and those Sword & Sorcery games that have something to say about this usually go "eh, say some time has passed and everyone is broke at the start of a new adventure". But I think the PCs handling their money and other resources might actually be useful to make part of the game. A story writer can just say the the hero lost and wasted anything and accepts a job because he needs money. But I think this might take too much agency from the players. It they are broke and have to make money quickly, it should be the consequence of something the players did, not something that is arbitrarily forced upon them. Because then theh can also play their characters in a way that makes them plan ahead for when their money runs out and go searching for well paying work themselves before they get broke. This avoids the situation where players have to take the one job the GM offers them now because at this point they have no more option to keep looking.
It also increases the value of treasure. If players expect that all their money will be taken away from them soon, then there is little incentive to go looking for gold, and take extra risks for extra gold.
Though instead of tracking the buying of a roasted chicken or mugnof beer, I would very much recommend just doing a weekly or monthly upkeep, based on the standard of living of the PCs. I think finding that they can't afford the luxuries they enjoyed after their last three hauls for much longer might be a big motivator. Not every PCs has to be like Conan and be happy with a bed of moss and a cloak for a blanket.
(Tracking time is important to determine how fast money runs out.)
Though of course, all of this goes very much against the conventional wisdom for Sword & Sorcery campaigns, so I am really curious about any strong counter-arguments anyone might have.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> While this is true, the challenge for the GM is how to make that eventually be in next week when the players return to play. Sword & Sorcery is generally not concerned with longer ongoing stories and happy to skip straight ahead to the moment that something interesting happens.



For my hypothetical Conan campaign, I told the players not too get to attached to their wealth or items.  In one session a PC might be the general of a large army in Corinthia and in the next might be near penniless on the back of a dying horse (with no name) trekking across the desert in Shem.  

I described my campaign idea by comparing it to the old 60s western television show _Rawhide._  In _Rawhide_, our cowboys were driving cattle to a location to be sold in Sedalia (season 1).  But along the way they often had adventures which had than a tenuous relationship to their main goal of getting to Sedalia.  So while the PCs all want to find this sorceress, they've got to eat in the meanwhile and search for clues as to her location.  It turns out that finding a centuries old shapeshifting sorcerer is no easy task.  

The nice thing about this episodic format is that you can pretty much do whatever type of adventure you want.  You could even have recurring characters appear from time to time, perhaps a merchant who sometimes helps and sometimes complicates the PC's lives?  



Yora said:


> But I think the PCs handling their money and other resources might actually be useful to make part of the game. A story writer can just say the the hero lost and wasted anything and accepts a job because he needs money. But I think this might take too much agency from the players. It they are broke and have to make money quickly, it should be the consequence of something the players did, not something that is arbitrarily forced upon them.




I think the best thing to do is to talk to them about expectations.  Like I said earlier, when I talked to my players I explained how wealth would work.  Don't get attached to it because wealth accumulation as they've experienced in D&D isn't really a thing here.  But in Modiphius' _Conan,_ the PCs carouse which includes all the activities they engage in between adventures.  This would include things like partying like it's 1999, upkeep on their equipment, meeting a patron, gambling, finding rumors, engaging in a trade, healing, cultivate their reputation (party like its 1999 but with other people), etc., etc.  This can bleed some of the gold from their coffers and gives them a choice  of what to do next.  There's even some special events that might occur that can come into play during the next adventure. 



Yora said:


> Though instead of tracking the buying of a roasted chicken or mugnof beer, I would very much recommend just doing a weekly or monthly upkeep, based on the standard of living of the PCs. I think finding that they can't afford the luxuries they enjoyed after their last three hauls for much longer might be a big motivator. Not every PCs has to be like Conan and be happy with a bed of moss and a cloak for a blanket.



When Conan had the coin he lived high on the hog.  When he was destitute he didn't complain, he just rolled up his sleeves and got to work.  



Yora said:


> (Tracking time is important to determine how fast money runs out.)
> Though of course, all of this goes very much against the conventional wisdom for Sword & Sorcery campaigns, so I am really curious about any strong counter-arguments anyone might have.



I don't want to track time too closely because that sounds boring.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> If you look around the internet, you can find a number of discussions that popped up over the years on what you need for a Sword & Sorcery campaign, and it's generally always the same list of established conventions, that oddly enough doesn't actually match with many of the classic stories that are considered foundational to the style. "Humans only, no spellcasters, no alignment, but the PCs should also all be pretty evil". Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
> 
> But let us say you have established your setting and think it feels sufficiently swordly and sorcerous. And you have your dusty starting town on the edge of the monster infested wilderness and your party of baass PCs. *What happens now?*
> 
> ...





Yora said:


> While I really do appreciate everyone's participation in this topic, I hope that we can keep the discussion on how to create and run fantasy RPG adventures that evoke the feel of Sword & Sorcery.



My advice, based a little bit on personal experience, would be to drop _the GM creates an adventure_ and instead to focus on _the PCs have their own stakes in whatever is going on_. I would look for a system that gives the PCs fairly clear needs (eg a wealth/resources rating that is under constant pressure) and gives the players fairly straightforward ways to get involved and make things happen.

I've used Burning Wheel for RPGing with a bit of a S&S feel. I've also used AD&D, but I think it's a bit less well-suited, because it doesn't give the players quite so many levers. But in both cases my approach was to focus on situation, and then following the players' lead.



Yora said:


> Sword & Sorcery is generally not concerned with longer ongoing stories and happy to skip straight ahead to the moment that something interesting happens. Ideally, you get into the action within 5 minutes of play. But with the PCs being the masters of their own fates, and proactive initative by the players being desired, I think this is a point where the media of roleplaying and writing lead to different demands. The circumstances under which the PCs end up in an adventure can be skipped in a story, but are important parts of play.
> 
> Similarly, someting I have planned for my next campaign, is to strictly track the time of the campaign and the money of the PCs. These are things that are irrelevant in stories and are therefore ignored, and those Sword & Sorcery games that have something to say about this usually go "eh, say some time has passed and everyone is broke at the start of a new adventure". But I think the PCs handling their money and other resources might actually be useful to make part of the game. A story writer can just say the the hero lost and wasted anything and accepts a job because he needs money. But I think this might take too much agency from the players. It they are broke and have to make money quickly, it should be the consequence of something the players did, not something that is arbitrarily forced upon them. Because then they can also play their characters in a way that makes them plan ahead for when their money runs out and go searching for well paying work themselves before they get broke. This avoids the situation where players have to take the one job the GM offers them now because at this point they have no more option to keep looking.



My own view, and experience, is that the things you are proposing here - spending time at the table on the circumstances leading to adventure, on keeping track of the passage of time, and on keeping detailed track of money - are apt to produce play that does not feel very S&S-ish.

Taking away the PCs money is not "taking agency from the players" unless we accept, as a premise, that what is important to play is _managing the PCs' money_. But why would we accept that premise in a S&S game? To drive the game you need the PCs (and thereby the players) to have the rights sorts of needs, and the need for money is a straightforward one. Social dynamics are also important in at least some S&S (ie REH Conan, which is the S&S I personally know best).

The way to avoid the situation where the players have to take the one job the GM offers them is not to bring it about that the PCs don't need cash (or don't need to escape this city _right here, right now_) but to allow the players to exercise genuine agency over how they respond to the situation that sets their PCs into motion. If the players need to leave town, they get to declare a check _to board a departing vessel at the docks_ (a la Queen of the Black Coast) or to declare a check _to sneak out hidden under their cloaks_ (I think something like this happens in The Hour of the Dragon, doesn't it?) or to establish a meeting with a friendly magician who will conjure a flying steed for them (The Scarlet Citadel). This is why I think a system like BW is strong for S&S, but you could try and adapt D&D in this sort of direction - use Streetwise checks, or the Contacts mechanic from Yakuza in the original OA; use Knowledge checks; etc.

I think what will shut down a S&S feel is a sense that the players have to find out what the GM has in mind for their PCs to do. This gives the game a detective-story feel, not a S&S one.


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

I really like the approach of looking at things from the perspective of the PCs' needs. If they have needs, you can both threaten them and tempt them, without sending them down any specific past.
But I think this is probably where Sword & Sorcery becomes a difficult style for RPGs. Generally speaking, protagonists in Sword & Sorcery are portrayed to not really have any needs. No superiors to please, no homes to protect. And if money becomes meaningless because it will simply evaporate once you get it, there's not even a real need for that.
What do the characters need?


----------



## TimWest (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> I really like the approach of looking at things from the perspective of the PCs' needs. If they have needs, you can both threaten them and tempt them, without sending them down any specific past.
> But I think this is probably where Sword & Sorcery becomes a difficult style for RPGs. Generally speaking, protagonists in Sword & Sorcery are portrayed to not really have any needs. No superiors to please, no homes to protect. And if money becomes meaningless because it will simply evaporate once you get it, there's not even a real need for that.
> What do the characters need?



Isn't this where carousing rules come into play? 

Or needing to exchange 'gold' for XP in order to get training in order to get better at skills?

Players / characters want to increase their odds of survival and success.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 13, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So ... I'm not sure you're going to get full agreement on these points. _Classic_ (OD&D, early AD&D and B/X) D&D, for example is often considered more S&S, yet has elves, dwarves, and other "Tokien-esque" high fantasy flourishes.
> 
> It helps to start with the classic canon of S&S in terms of literature; as is well-know, this was a term coined by the giant of the field (and a foremost influence on D&D), Fritz Leiber in response to Michael Moorcock.
> 
> ...




I agree that OD&D is very S&S but I’m not sure about your “do good save the world” argument. I’d consider Masters of the Universe and John Carter of Mars to be S&S for instance and in both of those the protagonist are heroic outsiders who do good deeds to save kingdom and ultimately the world.  Conan when rising through the ranks eventually becomes Captain in the Army and then of course King where he must defend his kingdom against external threats and internal plots.

For me S&S protagonist arent morally ambiguous but rather their society is - civilisation is depicted as inherently corrupt, and evil people use deception and dark powers to oppress others. A hero in S&S chooses to oppose these deceptions through direct physical action.


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

That's a very good point. Some protagonists are heroic, some are villainous, and others are self-absorbed thieves, but there's generally little doubt on what they are, and they don't delude themselves in seeing themselves as something else.
When Conan was a thief and when he was a pirate, he was fully aware of what he was and made no excuses. Fahfrd and Gray Mouser have no shame, and Kane never countered any claims that he was the most evil man on Earth.
That is in contrast to the anntagonists of their adventures who make excuses for their deeds by calling on duty, justice, the greater good, or even just that it's their right to take the things they want. Villains in Sword & Sorcery are dishonest, while protagonists are sincere, even when they do bad things.

The society being corrupt is also a common theme. People are often willing to take bribes, and if they do not they often can be blackmailed. Since as I supposed earlier, a big difference between protagonists and the people around them is that the protagonists are free of social ties, while everyone else is trapped by them.

I think it could be a good practice for Sword & Sorcery adventures to plan for plenty of NPCs who can be bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise made to betray their allies by the players. Which can be a great use of money. I wouldn't allow players to get rid of obstacles like that, but it can be used to create opportunities to strike directly against an enemy who is otherwise too well protected.


MGibster said:


> I don't want to track time too closely because that sounds boring.



I was thinking of "What day is it?"
Though if you have weekly or monthly upkeep, even just knowing what week or month it is would do.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 13, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> I agree that OD&D is very S&S but I’m not sure about your “do good save the world” argument. I’d consider Masters of the Universe and John Carter of Mars to be S&S for instance and in both of those the protagonist are heroic outsiders who do good deeds to save kingdom and ultimately the world.





Erm ...









						Sword and planet - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Hence, the issue with genre definitions pointed to above. Regardless, there tends to be a strict dividing line between genre/pulp science fiction (however fantasy-y) and genre/pulp fantasy.

Put more simply- Flash Gordon is not swords and sorcery.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 13, 2021)

@Tonguez FWIW, the best definition I have come across is probably the one at Goodman Games:






						Defining Sword & Sorcery|Goodman Games
					






					goodman-games.com
				




It shows both that there are some defining characteristics (as we have discussed), as well as the difficulty in pigeonholing the genre, often using negative definitions (...unlike high fantasy).

Finally, I think it correctly compares it to another slippery pulp genre, noir.


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> I think one subtle element is that the setting is just that: it's scenery, a backdrop. The protagonists don't have much emotional attachment to the world around them, and they're definitely not there to change it. They interact with their immediate surroundings, they're not concerned with the past or the future or anything that's happening further away than the reach of their axe.






ART! said:


> Until things go pear-shaped, at which point they look to their best interests and bug out. Loyalty to some great cause - or even to one's faithful crew of pirates - only goes so far when your neck is on the line.






TimWest said:


> For me part of it is about telling the story of characters making their way through a dangerous world. Even if they're not particularly goal oriented themselves, the nature of the environment means that 'adventure' will eventually come their way.






pemerton said:


> My advice, based a little bit on personal experience, would be to drop _the GM creates an adventure_ and instead to focus on _the PCs have their own stakes in whatever is going on_. I would look for a system that gives the PCs fairly clear needs (eg a wealth/resources rating that is under constant pressure) and gives the players fairly straightforward ways to get involved and make things happen.



Most advice on Sword & Sorcery adventures and sandbox games in general is to build follow-up adventures based on what the PCs experienced and did, and where the players want to take it from there. Only trouble is that this doesn't help when you start a campaign and there's not been anything happening that you can build on.

However, there is one need that is already established before the players make characters and had some time to get a feel for them, and that's the need to stay alive. Starting the campaign with an opening adventure in which this is the only objective could probably work quite well.
One idea is that the party comes through a town that has been pretty much destroyed and the last people are packing up and leaving. The PCs can't stay in the ruins once they're fully abandoned, and continuing on towards any other place in the area will face them with the hostile creatures and NPCs that are still roaming the area. Add some neutral NPCs who are still around or are on the road ahead of the party, and it shouldn't be too hard to get a couple of situations going for the players to find their feet.
What also could be fun is to start with the party shipwrecked on an island and having to find a way off before they starve or get eaten by monsters. You could have a pirate lair somewhere on the island, or a wrecked merchant ship that needs help to get repaired and protected against monsters in the meantime.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> Most advice on Sword & Sorcery adventures and sandbox games in general is to build follow-up adventures based on what the PCs experienced and did, and where the players want to take it from there. Only trouble is that this doesn't help when you start a campaign and there's not been anything happening that you can build on.



This is where I would suggest techniques like the sort of backstory creation that is part of Burning Wheel PC building, or some sort of Kicker.

Here's how I started my S&S-ish BW campaign (that's me posting as thurgon on RPG.net): [Burning Wheel] First Burning Wheel session


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> Most advice on Sword & Sorcery adventures and sandbox games in general is to build follow-up adventures based on what the PCs experienced and did, and where the players want to take it from there. Only trouble is that this doesn't help when you start a campaign and there's not been anything happening that you can build on.



My solution to this one is a good Session 0. Work out why the characters are working together and why they are where they are.

For example: In one campaign, we established that the 3 PCs were brothers and that they were from the ruling family in a barbarian tribe. The oldest (who actually took the Barbarian class) was meant to inherit everything and wed the heiress of another powerful family in the tribe. The middle brother was a rogue/Poisoner, who was the tribe healer and shaman. the youngest was just a layabout.    

The tribe followed Shub-Niggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young, and as part of their tradition the youngest brother was to be sacrificed. The two older bothers decided they couldn't let that happen and interrupted the ceremony part way through and then the three fled to the nearest city.

With that backstory, we established motivations for the characters, NPCs that could be interwoven into other adventures, and reasons for the youngest brother to be a GOO Warlock of the Black Goat. They had an adventure to follow up upon and endless roleplaying possibilities in the future, especially dealing with guilt over the family responsibilities each had left behind. It gave me a great canvass to work details into the adventures we played, customizing them to be more personal and immediate to the players and characters both.    

It can all work, and work really well.


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

What was the setup for the first adventure of the campaign? How were the PCs hooked?


----------



## TimWest (Jul 13, 2021)

> However, there is one need that is already established before the players make characters and had some time to get a feel for them, and that's the need to stay alive.




I've been writing about a solo game and that's pretty much how I kicked things off.

1. I started the game when my character and a fellow NPC just survived a shipwreck. They were captives and was their chance to escape, they had to evade other survivors of the shipwreck.
2. They decided to make their way to a city that they had heard of.
3. After an adventure they reach the city but they don't have freedom to enter.
4. They meet someone who will help them in exchange for a task.
5. Something goes wrong and they are captured again.

I'm playing in a setting that is somewhat Bronze Age to Classical Antiquity in terms of technology and social structure which means that on the face of if there isn't as much personal freedom as in other settings. As I mentioned before I allow a bit more flexibility because it's a period of change. So far my character is just trying to survive and gain some level of autonomy.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 13, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> I agree that OD&D is very S&S  {snip}




I wanted to address this further when I had the chance, which I do now. This specific topic came up before when discussing the Greyhawk setting. Here's the (very) lengthy thread starter:








						D&D General - For the Love of Greyhawk: Why People Still Fight to Preserve Greyhawk
					

On the recent thread regarding the upcoming hardcover book and a discussion regarding Iggwilv and Tasha- https://www.enworld.org/threads/iggwilv-tasha-to-join-volo-xanathar-and-mordenkainen-updated.674231/  .... a discussion broke out about Greyhawk, and canon, and what is good, and bad, so on...




					www.enworld.org
				




There was a brief companion thread later about genres and campaign settings (more on Eberron as noir) here:








						D&D General - Genres and Campaign Settings, and why D&D is not a Work of Literature
					

Moving somewhat tangentially from the previous 3,804 threads on Greyhawk (numbers are approximate), I thought I'd go more deeply into a discussion about why there is a limit to analogies regarding campaign settings and genre. While this topic originally came up regarding Greyhawk and "Swords and...




					www.enworld.org
				




Getting to the original topic, there are those (such as me) who might describe the original, 1983 and prior, Greyhawk setting as S&S.

On the other hand, there are those who might observe that D&D itself, in 1983 and prior to that, was more S&S, therefore the default setting wasn't _necessarily _S&S in and of itself, so much as it was a conduit for the default playstyle, which was more S&S-influenced.

Which brings up the natural questions- what, about early D&D (OD&D, early AD&D, Moldvay) is S&S? I would put forth that the following factors combined in various ways to make it feel more S&S, in terms of providing a better definition of the term specifically for the TTRPG genre (with the assumption that "Early OD&D mimicked S&S"). One factor that is also lurking within the background is that the people playing back then were necessarily more influenced by the writers of the S&S genre, since they were more current and well-known at that time than they are now. 

1. Danger. Look, it's not like Conan or Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser or Elric were getting killed off in every short story (let me introduce you to Conan II!). But early D&D was certainly dangerous- whether in terms of traps, death, TPKs, or any number of other factors. While this mapping to the literary genre is inexact, there was a real feeling of danger to the characters, because the world was dangerous, and the characters could (and would) die.

2. Good doesn't necessarily triumph. This is not Tolkien or Lloyd Alexander; the heroes are not destined to do great things, and good does not win out. Sometimes evil triumphs. In the long run, maybe it's inevitable.

3. Complex and gritty. Look, it's a fantasy world, but it's a fantasy world that's out to get you. Civilization exists in patches, and where it does exist, it's not always a great thing; great power corrupts, and great kingdoms (or, in the case of Greyhawk, the Great Kingdom) are likely to be corrupt and fallen. A thieves' guild is likely to be the real power, if not the Mayor.

4. Low magic. This is a rather ... we'll say _arguable _topic, as people love to discuss what defines low magic. But in early D&D, there were no cantrips, and magic users were notoriously underpowered for many levels; you could and would have multiple combats go by without any spellcasting. Because spellcasting took a while, and due to initiative, the ability of martial characters in your party to "disrupt" evil spellcasters was always present, giving some verisimilitude to the S&S trope of the swordsman who has to close in with the sorcerer.

5. Ye olde inne. Look, it's a hoary trope now, but the concept of a group of mercenaries looking to be hired for a job ... that's as S&S as you get.  There are no grand adventure paths- just jobs to be done, tombs to be raided, and, um, modules to do.  In other words, the standard S&S trope of the mercenary was reflected in the episodic nature of the game- in early D&D, this is reflected by the presence of shorter, standalone modules that can be integrated into the campaign. 

6. Characters are selfish. I don't want to put too much of an emphasis on this- the PCs will have other interests and other goals, but when we discuss S&S, the characters aren't saving the kingdom because it's the right thing to do- they do it because they are paid (and, often, double-crossed). In  early D&D, this is reflected by the emphasis on money as XP.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

Just replying to make this post appear in the list of threads I participate in.


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

Could we please not have this discussion about how genres are defined in this thread? I really do appreciate the engagement, but the debate of what is Sword & Sorcery or not usually ends up burying every discussion that talks about Sword & Sorcery.
The topic here is how to prepare and run adventures that evoke a Sword & Sorcery feel.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> Could we please not have this discussion about how genres are defined in this thread? I really do appreciate the engagement, but the debate of what is Sword & Sorcery or not usually ends up burying every discussion that talks about Sword & Sorcery.
> The topic here is how to prepare and run adventures that evoke a Sword & Sorcery feel.




By understanding the issue and the history, you answer your question.

_The first two are where I see some challenges pop up. When the PCs should have their own stakes in what is going on, but they also should be free agents and wildcards, how do you set up the hook to get them involved in the first place?_

Traditionally, S&S in D&D is accomplished pretty simply- to quote Goodman Games:
_The protagonists in sword-and-sorcery fiction are most often thieves, mercenaries, or barbarians struggling not for worlds or kingdoms, but for their own gain or mere survival. They are rebels against authority, skeptical of civilization and its rulers and adherents. While the strengths and skills of sword-and-sorcery heroes are romanticized, their exploits take place on a very different stage from one where lovely princesses, dashing nobles, and prophesied saviors are cast as the leads. Sword-and-sorcery heroes face more immediate problems than those of questing kings. They are cousins of the lone gunslingers of American westerns and the wandering samurai of Japanese folklore, traveling through the wilderness to right wrongs or simply to earn food, shelter, and coin._

In the classic mode, the players are (as you put it) the free agents and the wildcards; put another way, they are mercenaries- sellswords. Their own stake is to continue to earn food, shelter, and coin, especially early on.

The "hook" should just be that- the desire of the players to adventure, to make money, to gain for themselves. You don't need to shipwreck them. There is no requirement that they start out at a particular disadvantage.

The nature of what they do (and want) provides the course of the campaign; if they take X adventure from Y petty noble, then maybe they anger Z noble, who will then endeavor to make like ... difficult for them. Or maybe Y noble doesn't want to pay them. Or perhaps their renown attracts the attention of others, higher up the foodchain, requiring a quick retreat away from the supposed-homebase that they are in.

In other words, the difficulty in understanding your question is because this is already an established method of gameplay that goes to the origins of D&D; to ask "What hook could I possibly come up with for S&S campaigns," seems odd, but perhaps I misunderstand the question you ask. Who knows.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

TimWest said:


> I've been writing about a solo game and that's pretty much how I kicked things off.
> 
> 1. I started the game when my character and a fellow NPC just survived a shipwreck. They were captives and was their chance to escape, they had to evade other survivors of the shipwreck.
> 2. They decided to make their way to a city that they had heard of.
> ...



Do you mean literally solo? Or one player + one GM?

If the latter, how was it established at (2) that the protagonists had heard of the city?


----------



## TimWest (Jul 13, 2021)

> Do you mean literally solo? Or one player + one GM?
> 
> If the latter, how was it established at (2) that the protagonists had heard of the city?




Yes I'm playing it on my own, no GM, using the IronSworn rules. I just decided that the other character knew about the city and would be able to lead us there. In reality I'm playing two characters at the moment but the main one is statted out completely while the other is only done using the game's Companion asset.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 13, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> In the classic mode, the players are (as you put it) the free agents and the wildcards; put another way, they are mercenaries- sellswords. Their own stake is to continue to earn food, shelter, and coin, especially early on.
> 
> The "hook" should just be that- the desire of the players to adventure, to make money, to gain for themselves. You don't need to shipwreck them. There is no requirement that they start out at a particular disadvantage.
> 
> ...



It's also helpful to avoid framing the sort of tropes and stakes that lend themselves to heroic play. The BBEG doesn't threaten THE world; they threaten YOUR world as an individual. 

As an aside: I think that it would be quite fun to design a Sword & Sorcery campaign world for Cortex Prime. One could easily frame the usual S&S motivations in a prime set (e.g., Values: Steel, Wealth, Revenge, Glory, Romance, Freedom, etc.), which means that players would actively be engaging these tropes when making rolls.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 13, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> It's also helpful to avoid framing the sort of tropes and stakes that lend themselves to heroic play. The BBEG doesn't threaten THE world; they threaten YOUR world as an individual.
> 
> As an aside: I think that it would be quite fun to design a Sword & Sorcery campaign world for Cortex Prime. One could easily frame the usual S&S motivations in a prime set (e.g., Values: Steel, Wealth, Revenge, Glory, Romance, Freedom, etc.), which means that players would actively be engaging these tropes when making rolls.




Good points- I think that it would not just be fun, but also a very useful exercise to see how different systems implement S&S!


----------



## MGibster (Jul 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think what will shut down a S&S feel is a sense that the players have to find out what the GM has in mind for their PCs to do. This gives the game a detective-story feel, not a S&S one.



The GM could just tell the PCs what's going on and start adventures in media res. 

_Your informant confirmed that Zenobia was born in the ancient kingdom of Corithia, and knowing that her tomb might still be found among the crumbling ruins, you journeyed there in hopes of learning more about your antediluvian adversary, but her unholy sepulcher has proven difficult to locate.  In the meanwhile, you find yourself employed in the king's guard, where you have risen to captain allowing you both the funds and access to learned men and scholars who can aid you in finding Zenobia's tomb.  But beware!  You cannot help but notice the jealous eyes of the aristocracy staring at the foreign barbarian who attained the king's trust and such a lofty position...._


Aldarc said:


> It's also helpful to avoid framing the sort of tropes and stakes that lend themselves to heroic play. The BBEG doesn't threaten THE world; they threaten YOUR world as an individual.



And the goals are somewhat personal as well.  You're not saving a kingdom for the sake of saving it, you're saving it because it's rightfully yours.  Or you're clashing with that evil cult because they've squatted in this ancient temple and you know the Crown of Athos is in there somewhere.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 13, 2021)

MGibster said:


> The GM could just tell the PCs what's going on and start adventures in media res.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And the goals are somewhat personal as well.  You're not saving a kingdom for the sake of saving it, you're saving it because it's rightfully yours.



I think there is a potential for tension between the first and second bits of what I've quoted. That's why I was suggesting a greater degree of player-generation of the focus of play.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 13, 2021)

MGibster said:


> And the goals are somewhat personal as well.  You're not saving a kingdom for the sake of saving it, you're saving it because it's rightfully yours.  Or you're clashing with that evil cult because they've squatted in this ancient temple and you know the Crown of Athos is in there somewhere.



The kingdom may not be rightfully yours, but if you want it and fight for it, it may be yours by the time you've finished saving it from a weak "legitimate" king. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Good points- I think that it would not just be fun, but also a very useful exercise to see how different systems implement S&S!



You likely have 1E and B/X covered on that front. I would also consider looking at Dark Sun (2e D&D), Forbidden Lands (Fria Ligan), The Dying Earth (DCC), Stormbringer (BRP), and Conan (2d20). Undoubtedly there are many others, but going through all the examples would be a bit much for what is meant to be more of a drive-by-post.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 13, 2021)

I think that some ideas from tragic romantic fantasy, like Guy Gavriel Kay, can actually be really good S&S adventure hooks. 

The Sorcerer King lost his favorite child to the people of one PC's homeland, and the Sorcerer King responded by breaking their towers, raping their wealth, burning their libraries, and cursing their land so that only natives could hold the name of the land in their mind, could hear it without immediately forgetting it. These once proud folk are now scattered, though some remain in their homeland, which is now named after their oldest rivals (becoming Lower Corte in the novel Tigana). The people cannot even say their proper names in the presence of others, because they styled themselves using the name of their principality (d'Tigana), and the pain of saying the word and seeing a blank face is enough that most are simply trying to move on and forget. 

But not the PC and their allies. They seek to end this curse, but it is complicated by the presence of another Sorcerous invader in the region who will sweep in and take the Sorcerer Kings lands if he is killed or his power broken, so they must find a path to break the power of both Sorcerers and free the region, not just their own land. Not because they care about the lives of their neighbors, but because their own home will never be free while either Sorcerer is there. 

That is from a novel (Tigana) that is very much romantic fantasy based on medieval Italy and it's city states and provinces that often allowed invaders in on the promise that the invaders would destroy their rivals, but it's a story hook that works beautifully in S&S, either as a PC background, a "you're all from here" group background, or even the background of a quest giver, who might in turn try to send the PCs to their death in order to achieve his ends. 

Hell, the PCs could start out as mercenaries in the employ of one of the Sorcerers, and get dragged into the rebellious plots by circumstance and by reluctant and begrudging empathy and the promise of wealth, and/or by their favorite NPC friend being revealed to be involved and/or getting taken prisoner by one of the Sorcerers.


----------



## ART! (Jul 13, 2021)

First off: I'm enjoying and appreciating this thread immensely. I've had it in my heads to run a D&D 5E S&S game for quite a while, and there's now a window coming up for me to do so. I really want to bore down into how to structure things so that the tone is kind of built in to chargen and into how I run it.



Aldarc said:


> As an aside: I think that it would be quite fun to design a Sword & Sorcery campaign world for Cortex Prime. One could easily frame the usual S&S motivations in a prime set (e.g., Values: Steel, Wealth, Revenge, Glory, Romance, Freedom, etc.), which means that players would actively be engaging these tropes when making rolls.




I've had this idea for a while to apply Cortex-like dice sizes to Personality Traits and maybe other elements of Backgrounds in 5E. They would work like the variant Proficency Die rule in the 5E DMG, i.e. when applicable you add the die from the appropriate trait to a roll. I might even include the "1s are complications" thing, in which case the Flaw from Personality Traits would always be a d4.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think there is a potential for tension between the first and second bits of what I've quoted. That's why I was suggesting a greater degree of player-generation of the focus of play.



That tension is always there but it can be mitigated by the GM sitting down with the players and discussing what they can expect in the campaign.  But I'm looking at this almost entirely through the lens of _Conan _stories from Howard and Marvel Comics which I have to acknowledge is not the only way to look at it.  So I'm coming at it from the perspective that the PCs goals won't necessarily be the same from session to session and with the successful conclusion of a long term goal representing the end of the campaign.


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

I think Sword & Sorcery benefits particularly well from not having an expectation of what happens next. The GM writing a custom adventure based on what the players say they want and what happened in the last game certainly is a considerable degree of freedom, but I think the more roguish and swashbuckling you get, the more desirable it becomes for the players to be able to completely throw everything they planned out of the window in the heat of the moment and do something drastically different.
They players may have said at the end of the last game that they will accept the offer of the thieves' guild and work together against a common foe, but there should be room for the players deciding they actually want to betray the thieves and expose the entire plan to a rival faction. I think this should be possible, and the players understand that they have this option without making many hours of preparation completely pointless. And of course, in such situations, the GM should prepare material accordingly.

I'd have to read the whole thing again to be sure, but I think that's exactly what the whole don't prep plots is about.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 13, 2021)

I think another factor to keep in mind for a Sword & Sorcery type world/campaign is how commoners view magic. I feel I hammer on this point a lot, but common people would be _terrified _of magic and anyone who can use it, especially if most magicians they saw were doing evil or harmful things (cultists, the corrupt king's mind readers, turning folks into newts, etc.). Now, some people argue that levying a massive social penalty onto magic-using PCs is unfair, but I think it's something that you can cover in your Session 0 if not before. 

Nobody trusts a magic user, and even clerics aren't going to be immune to that; sure, your magic brought Urgevd the Cobbler back to his feet and even restored his mangled arm - but what ELSE did it do? And will that evil spread? And how do we know you aren't just controlling all of our minds as we speak?!


----------



## TimWest (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> I think Sword & Sorcery benefits particularly well from not having an expectation of what happens next.




Yes because IMO there's an inherent selficiousness to the genre. Characters have to have the freedom to change their goals at any time, whether it's for self-preservation or because they spot a new better opportunity.

Contrasted with heroes in high fantasy that will not be swayed from their big quest.


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

Magic certainly is not a tool that makes everyday live easier and more convenient. Games like D&D have a good amount of minor spells that do things which replace modern tools and devices. You don't see that in Sword & Sorcery. People would look at it like that time in The Simpsons (yes, I'm that old, but so are many of us here) where Homer gets a revolver and casually just turns off things in the house by shooting them. Even other sorcerers would call it insane because magic is a dangerous tool and weapon, not a harmless toy.

I think generally speaking, there is clearer distinction between the natural and the supernatural. Which often can even be described as the unnatural. Magic spells and magic creatures have no place in the world and lives of ordinary people. They know that such things exist, but they exist somewhere else in exotic and dangerous places.

I also think that supernatural beings should not be portrayed like people. You can certainly have creatures that have the appearance of people, but it should be clear that that's just an outward disguise hiding a monstrosity. You certainly could have elves, but you wouldn't have an elf travel in a PC party and sleep at inns or drink beer in taverns.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 13, 2021)

If I were to write an S&S adventure as such (pretty much all my adventures lean in that direction, but I've never actually set out to achieve true S&S), I'd probably try a couple of ingredients:

- Start in medias res. The PCs are involved in something fairly innocuous - a standard burglary, guarding a caravan, traversing a mountain pass - and suddenly things start to happen.

- The "things that happen" would be of the fantastical and not-previously-encountered variety. The PCs, and preferably the players too, should be forced to stretch their imagination to overcome the challenge. As a DM, I rarely plan the solution, I'd rather let the players come up with something themselves.

- If at all possible, use E6. A 6th-level character is quite impressive by most S&S standards, particularly compared with your average commoner, without going into superhero territory. Even at their most impressive, they should be underdogs, or at least vulnerable. Death is an ever-present possibility.

- The adventure should be fairly short. One session, that's it. Or at most a few distinct chapters that each last one session.

- The PCs might be morally ambiguous, but their opponents should be unambiguously evil. Affable evil is Ok, but no sympathetic villains. When the hero's sword cleaves the BBEG's head, or their dagger sinks into their back, there should be no regrets, no question marks.

This isn't an exhaustive list, but definitel where I'd start.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 13, 2021)

Ath-kethin said:


> I think another factor to keep in mind for a Sword & Sorcery type world/campaign is how commoners view magic. I feel I hammer on this point a lot, but common people would be _terrified _of magic and anyone who can use it, especially if most magicians they saw were doing evil or harmful things (cultists, the corrupt king's mind readers, turning folks into newts, etc.).



In an early issue of Marvel's _Savage Sword of Conan_ (1974), Conan runs into some cultist who got their hands on a magical ring that's still attached to the owner's hand. After dispatching the cultist, Conan clearly sees the golden bejeweled ring is magical and says to himself that such things aren't worth the trouble they bring and just leave it on the ground. I can scarcely imagine a D&D character behaving in a similar manner. I'd severely limit the access PCs had to magic in any S&S game I ran.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> Sword & Sorcery is a somewhat old fashioned style of heroic fantasy that is primarily really just a somewhat more specific style of aesthetics and tone. While there's been a good number of RPGs in recent decades that bill themselves as Sword & Sorcery games, most are rally just regular D&D without elves, dwarves, and clerics.
> 
> If you look around the internet, you can find a number of discussions that popped up over the years on what you need for a Sword & Sorcery campaign, and it's generally always the same list of established conventions, that oddly enough doesn't actually match with many of the classic stories that are considered foundational to the style. "Humans only, no spellcasters, no alignment, but the PCs should also all be pretty evil". Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
> 
> ...



There are several cool things about S&S and also too much dogmatic discussion ("you're having badwrongfun"). People take the right to judge others as if they can't separate fiction from reality. Just because I want inequality in my S&S does not mean I condone it or want it in real life. Duh.



> Sword & Sorcery has three main characteristic traits, which are protagonist who exist outside the normal structure of society and its rules, act on their own initiative and their own personal reasons, and who deal with any obstacles by taking decisive action. It's not the only definition of Sword & Sorcery, but I think few people would deny these traits to be typical elements of the style.



I'm sorry but your three core traits boil down to playing a murder hobo and that doesn't set S&S apart.

I would instead say the core element is that the stories aren't epic. I would not say S&S is low fantasy, but at least it isn't high fantasy and certainly not epic fantasy. Threats and possibilities are more grounded more human. If you can just jump over castle walls, or teleport through them, or level mountains with a stare it isn't S&S. On the other hand, S&S has no time for pig-farming low fantasy either.

So most low-level fantasy fare would work from a story progression perspective. The trappings are of course different. Actually you need a different world than your regular D&D feudal villages to help players recalibrate their expectations and their roleplay. If you act like a true S&S barbarian in the small town of Somerset everybody is going to be upset or disgusted. But in the frontier town of Xultek nobody bats an eye. Exact same character doing exactly the same things. (Actually western adventures would probably work really well, assuming the GM makes the effort to lose the six-shooters and the locomotives, and turn the evil rancher with the job into a self-proclaimed God-Emperor of his teeming but otherwise insignificant city)

S&S is about solving challenges with daring and muscle. Neither technology nor magic should be able to replace muscle. The core character class of any S&S adventure needs to be the Fighter. S&S heroes need to expend real effort, and S&S should be steamy and sweaty. One painful discussion point, then, is magic items. The purist approach is to remove magical +1 bonuses and make heroes rely on their own abilities. Perhaps a sensible alternative is to reskin magic swords as just really sharp ones. If you currently play D&D as written and have no issues with gold having little purpose, then fine. But many players will have trouble adapting to a game expecting gold to just run through their fingers, wasted on wine, women and song.

S&S is also "not epic" in that there is no place for the moral hero. While nobody finds it fun to play a suffering hero, NPCs should not have the same luck. I feel S&S is excellent for moral dilemmas with no easy solution - and no cosmic retribution for choosing the low road. S&S heroes should never be chastised for choosing the selfish or greedy or easy out. That's not the same thing as requiring players to play evil characters. It's just that good isn't rewarded and evil isn't punished. You're welcome to still avoid evil deeds - no point in playing a character whose morals disgust you, just as long as you realize you're playing in an uncaring world and you can't and should not get sidetracked by starting to right wrongs just because. Many adventures (especially D&D adventures) are written with "good wins out in the end" but a surprising number of scenarios can be (re)used by just dropping this notion. (In fact lots of D&D adventures would have become straight up just better if the scenario where the bad guys can win is taken seriously)

S&S is not equal and not fair. Might makes right, and if the "heroes" happen to come out on top, that helps nobody, because they will likely just drink their stay dry and when they go broke, move on. And it certainly does not have to be politically correct. If you personally don't like the notion that race is very significant and deterministic, fine, but to many a core aspect of S&S is the notion that civilization corrupts. The longer your character's civilization has existed, the unhealthier your people are in mind and body. While old timer S&S writers were outright racist (so that northern caucasians were the most pure and people from faux-Rome and faux-Egypt and faux-Babylon, say, were the peoples most associated with degeneration and debauchery and dark magics) you can change that aspect. I just find removing it to be too simplistic (few protesters think to replace the core theme they dislike with something equally compelling.) Other not-fair things like hunger or slavery or gender inequality are probably things you're able to see as tools not obstacles, otherwise why are you into S&S in the first place...

You say old fashioned. In the case of S&S, that's a good thing. S&S _should_ be a "simpler" world where there's a limit to how far intrigue and talk can take you, and there's a point when pure action needs to be applied.

A game like D&D 5E is actually very well suited to S&S. However, if your players are currently enamored with high-level play and its spells and gadgets, you might want to hold off or choose other players. In fact, I wonder if D&D players aren't having a harder time acclimatizing to S&S than players of other systems...?

Random list (with only one item right now, since I already used Westerns):
* Journeying to the center of the earth is very S&S! Primitive and retrograde!



> From what, we can postulate three things to keep in mind when running adventures that aim to evoke a feeling of Sword & Sorcery: 1) The PCs should not be bound to do anything by duty or obligation, 2) the PCs need to have their own stakes in whatever is going on, and 3) the GM should keep pressure on the players to do something and not give them any more than only a reasonable amount of time to discuss their next steps.
> 
> The first two are where I see some challenges pop up. When the PCs should have their own stakes in what is going on, but they also should be free agents and wildcards, how do you set up the hook to get them involved in the first place?



Yes, acknowledging that S&S heroes might not do it because it's the right thing to do is key. 

Start off by having them save their own lives is another good thing. So attack them! Don't bother with much of a back-story, they can sort that out at the campfire afterwards! 

If they decide they want to find out who's behind the attacks, fine, you have your story. Just be aware it's a very S&S thing to just shrug and move on "it's not my war". On the other hand, it's also very S&S to be forced into doing something. What's railroading in regular fantasy is a trope in S&S. (And it better be. You don't exactly have the "look the villagers are suffering, somebody rescue them" hook to play)

I wouldn't hesitate tempting them with their base instincts. If those attacking did so because the heroes stumbled into a battle zone, and the soldiers just assumed the heroes worked for the other side, they might inadvertently "rescue" a princess from her captors/kidnappers. A beautiful royal woman is worth more than entire cities for petty kings, but the heroes might just take her for themselves, or they might want to bring her to the attackers (holding no grudge for being attacked, seeing that all those 30 men paid for their mistake with their life).

It's kind of a sandboxy experience. Sure if you offer a ruined tower rumored to hold a giant ruby, no good player will just waste all your preparation by skipping it. But it's important to not judge choices. How otherwise enable players to truly the whole spectrum from selfless to selfish. (That's still not "evil". If your player starts torturing or raping, feel free to just stick a dagger in him. He can't very well complain a swift and nasty death isn't a S&S trope!)

So yes I feel D&D works really well. It's like playing a murder hobo with an unusual emphasis on the "hobo" part, and encouraging people to just live life to the fullest because it can end at any time. 

If you play with downtime and building churches and guilds, this will be hard for you. But a murder hobo has no home and builds nothing lasting. Which is why I feel it can be a mistake to nix the gold for equipment mini-game that was a part of D&D previously. You can't fault players to want to build something, and to me it makes much more sense to build onto your character than the riches and kingdoms that will slip between your fingers eventually. (Sure you can do that with swords too; it's just that with the simple tweak that is "you gain quality not magic bonuses", I find that the game works for you and not against you). Plus, money is a far weaker motivator in a game than in real life. S&S heroes are supposed to risk their lives for mere gold, and just saying "you can carouse harder with more gold" is just not enough for many players. Enabling players to convert gold into game stat upgrades (if not actual items) actually works well for many gamers.

In fact, if you want to talk real hard-core old-fashionism there's the gold for xp paradigm. Heh! Nothing explains the greedy behavior of S&S protagonists better than if it is their players' key to leveling them up! It easily provides motivation for most to risk their hero's life and even throw it away sometimes! 

In the end (an end I think ttrpg players will reach much faster than, say, comic book readers) you probably _will_ want to fight for something greater than yourself. After all, if your character starts each adventure from zero, it will be hard to build any campaign sense, and eventually you're going to tire of "random" one-offs. 

Whether this means surrounding the heroes with families and concubines that are cruelly removed from them to motivate them (easy to overdo; don't want the heroes to go fully nihilistic), or whether it means slowly unraveling a cosmic dark horror that is slowly eating the entire world (so that, again, you basically have no choice) I can't say.

Some games settle for playing until a king or warlock has been defeated. No need or desire to even reach the higher levels (even though a level 16 S&S Fighter cannot fundamentally do anything a level 4 Fighter can't; he can only do it far faster and more lethally)


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 13, 2021)

MGibster said:


> In an early issue of Marvel's _Savage Sword of Conan_ (1974), Conan runs into some cultist who got their hands on a magical ring that's still attached to the owner's hand. After dispatching the cultist, Conan clearly sees the golden bejeweled ring is magical and says to himself that such things aren't worth the trouble they bring and just leave it on the ground. I can scarcely imagine a D&D character behaving in a similar manner. I'd severely limit the access PCs had to magic in any S&S game I ran.



You make a good point!

And a decent solution is upping the proportion of magical items that carry curses. Yes, there's a benefit, but at what cost? And invariably, some will feel the cost is worth it, but not everyone. And the assumption will (eventually) be that ALL items are cursed and/or not worth it.

I dig it!


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> <snippity snip>
> 
> I also think that supernatural beings should not be portrayed like people. You can certainly have creatures that have the appearance of people, but it should be clear that that's just an outward disguise hiding a monstrosity. You certainly could have elves, but you wouldn't have an elf travel in a PC party and sleep at inns or drink beer in taverns.



I agree with this one 100% and add that any magic-users would/should be seen as supernatural under this paradigm.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

Ath-kethin said:


> To me, the defining aspect of Sword & Sorcery stories is their personal nature - the stories are small and local. I argue that I've never run anything BUT Sword & Sorcery adventures ever since I started playing D&D back in '95 or so.



That's true. 

Still, S&S is more Dark Sun than Forgotten Realms. 

(You can run small and local adventures in the Realms, especially at low levels, but you would never mistake them for S&S)


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My own view, and experience, is that the things you are proposing here - spending time at the table on the circumstances leading to adventure, on keeping track of the passage of time, and on keeping detailed track of money - are apt to produce play that does not feel very S&S-ish.



The basic reason I feel D&D 5E is the best version of D&D to play S&S is simply because it is the simplest and least administration-heavy one. Short and long rests instead of counting minutes and rounds. (It's easy to forget how cluttery 3E was... at least until you come across something like PF2


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> I agree that OD&D is very S&S but I’m not sure about your “do good save the world” argument. I’d consider Masters of the Universe and John Carter of Mars to be S&S for instance and in both of those the protagonist are heroic outsiders who do good deeds to save kingdom and ultimately the world.  Conan when rising through the ranks eventually becomes Captain in the Army and then of course King where he must defend his kingdom against external threats and internal plots.
> 
> For me S&S protagonist arent morally ambiguous but rather their society is - civilisation is depicted as inherently corrupt, and evil people use deception and dark powers to oppress others. A hero in S&S chooses to oppose these deceptions through direct physical action.



Yes. You can do good in S&S, you're just not expected to. And you seldom get any cosmic rewards for it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

Yora said:


> I think it could be a good practice for Sword & Sorcery adventures to plan for plenty of NPCs who can be bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise made to betray their allies by the players. Which can be a great use of money. I wouldn't allow players to get rid of obstacles like that, but it can be used to create opportunities to strike directly against an enemy who is otherwise too well protected.



A good point.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> By understanding the issue and the history, you answer your question.
> 
> _The first two are where I see some challenges pop up. When the PCs should have their own stakes in what is going on, but they also should be free agents and wildcards, how do you set up the hook to get them involved in the first place?_
> 
> ...



Fine. But the trappings matter. It's an established method of gameplay alright but what you feel you can do in the world and how NPCs react matter. 

The fact you could have the exact same story in Forgotten Reams and Hyboria doesn't mean S&S isn't its own thing.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 13, 2021)

MGibster said:


> In an early issue of Marvel's _Savage Sword of Conan_ (1974), Conan runs into some cultist who got their hands on a magical ring that's still attached to the owner's hand. After dispatching the cultist, Conan clearly sees the golden bejeweled ring is magical and says to himself that such things aren't worth the trouble they bring and just leave it on the ground. I can scarcely imagine a D&D character behaving in a similar manner. I'd severely limit the access PCs had to magic in any S&S game I ran.



Conan knew he had better things to do with his time than hiking to Mount Doom with a short, rotund gardener.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 13, 2021)

Ath-kethin said:


> Now, some people argue that levying a massive social penalty onto magic-using PCs is unfair, but I think it's something that you can cover in your Session 0 if not before.



A munchin is best off avoiding spellcasting classes entirely. 

More mature players are thankful they get to play casters at all. 

Veteran players realize that all magic comes with Fear and Domination built-in - for free...!


----------



## Yora (Jul 13, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm sorry but your three core traits boil down to playing a murder hobo and that doesn't set S&S apart.



Again, as everyone else, you are welcome to prove me wrong.
If you have examples of stories that feel like Sword & Sorcery and that have protagonists who are well integrated and influential people in their society and its institutions, who feel obligate to a duty to the public or loyalty to a lord, and who make attempts to solve conflicts through diplomacy and peaceful means, or delegate the dirty work to others, then I'd really be happy to hear them.

Conan becomes king, but he's not accepted by the people. Fafhrd and Gray Mouser are self-absorbed leeches. Elric may have a crown, but is exiled from his Empire in everything but name. Kane is the boogyman.
Now Jirel can be assumed to be well respected and beloved as ruler of her domain, but all the stories take place away from her people so none of her status is of any use on her adventures. And she also descends alone into nightmarish realms with a sword in hand. I believe the same applies to Bran Mac Morn.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

MGibster said:


> That tension is always there but it can be mitigated by the GM sitting down with the players and discussing what they can expect in the campaign.  But I'm looking at this almost entirely through the lens of _Conan _stories from Howard and Marvel Comics which I have to acknowledge is not the only way to look at it.  So I'm coming at it from the perspective that the PCs goals won't necessarily be the same from session to session and with the successful conclusion of a long term goal representing the end of the campaign.



My perspective is also REH Conan and Marvel Conan. I've never read Leiber and haven't read much Moorcock.

That's why I think Kickers - probably fairly light-hearted ones - are a pretty good fit for S&S RPGing. They give a strong in media res framing with instant player buy in.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Yora said:


> I think Sword & Sorcery benefits particularly well from not having an expectation of what happens next.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Agreed. That's why I'm pointing to systems and techniques that are strong in this respect.



MGibster said:


> In an early issue of Marvel's _Savage Sword of Conan_ (1974), Conan runs into some cultist who got their hands on a magical ring that's still attached to the owner's hand. After dispatching the cultist, Conan clearly sees the golden bejeweled ring is magical and says to himself that such things aren't worth the trouble they bring and just leave it on the ground. I can scarcely imagine a D&D character behaving in a similar manner. I'd severely limit the access PCs had to magic in any S&S game I ran.



In RPGing this is, again, a system matter.

Eg in Marvel Heroic RP and fantasy hacks (Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy), getting a permanent benefit (eg from a magic ring) is one way to spend XP. If the player wants to spend XP a different way (eg boosting an existing ability) then s/he will have his/her PC leave the ring!

Or in a system with traits, taking the ring might inflict a difficult/undesirable trait and so the player chooses not to have his/her PC take it. (Burning Wheel can work like this.)

I think it's better to look at how the system can be made to yield the desired fiction via its own internal logic, then to make fixed assumptions about the system and then imagine imposing ad hoc limits.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Yora said:


> Conan becomes king, but he's not accepted by the people.



Yes he is! This is the whole theme of The Scarlet Citadel and The Hour of the Dragon!

Also, upthread @CapnZapp said that S&S doesn't involve moral heroes. But in most of the REH Conan stories Conan chooses to sacrifice his own self-interest (eg treasure he might take) to do the right thing as that is framed in the story (eg The Tower of the Elephant; Jewels of Gwahlur). 

I know you don't want the thread to be about defining the S&S genre, and so I won't make this post too long. But as I see it the main contrast between S&S and JRRT-ish fantasy is that the former is modernist, even sometime existentialist - it presents the world as inherently lacking in value, and it is the action of the protagonists that imposes truth and meaning on the world - whereas JRRT-ish fantasy is conservative - it posits a world laden with meaning, and the path of heroism is identifying that meaning and having the faith and courage to act in accordance with it.

That's why paladins fit right into heroic fantasy - the hand of providence is ever-present! - whereas S&S only has magicians and evil high priests. (REH's Conan has the occasional hint of a beneficent priest of Isis or Mitra. I think if those hints were taken any further, it would undermine the basic ethos of the stories.)


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 14, 2021)

I think perhaps another difference between S&S and heroic fantasy is that in the latter the heroes are trying to make the world a better place, whereas in S&S the heroes like it the way it is: they have the skills and abilities to thrive in such a world.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> I think perhaps another difference between S&S and heroic fantasy is that in the latter the heroes are trying to make the world a better place, whereas in S&S the heroes like it the way it is: they have the skills and abilities to thrive in such a world.



in no way did Conan like the way things were, he just knew that the only way to change his circumstance was to take matters in to his own hands.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 14, 2021)

Yora said:


> Could we please not have this discussion about how genres are defined in this thread? I really do appreciate the engagement, but the debate of what is Sword & Sorcery or not usually ends up burying every discussion that talks about Sword & Sorcery.
> The topic here is how to prepare and run adventures that evoke a Sword & Sorcery feel.



So, to go more into how to run the scenario I put forth earlier, let’s imagine an adventure. The goal is to get better gear (the treasure), build your reputation as mercenary bards, and make contact with a potential ally and help her avoid assassination as she prepares for a honor duel where she either keeps her throne, or dies.  

First you must go to the island of Charano, and contact an established ally and help her with a thing and get some goods in return. She is an old witchy countess of something similar who helped one of the group in their youth. Beautiful, dangerous, intelligent, and in command of her small domain. She has the secret of an old magic, a magic that sorcerers do not understand because it is of the land and the old ways before the gods had names.  

Basically some social challenges (Conan interacts with a different culture, making friends and/or enemies), and then a reminder of just how weird and dangerous and unknowable magic is, as you make the PCs enter a shared dream state with the local villagers where they must battle faceless demons to protect the land from famine. If they go through with it, and survive, they gain a minor magic item and can talk thier way to being taught how to use this shared dream to communicate in each other’s minds (gaining basically the message cantrip s/day as a boon). If they _win_ the battles, they don’t have to finagle or negotiate for the knowledge, and if a PC performs especially well, saves some villagers lives, etc, that PC might get a spear that looks like it’s made of bronze but that is hard as steel, and which is especially deadly to aberrations and fiends. 

Next, the ally leads the group to a mountain pass in her domain where the meeting is to take place. Another social challenge, maybe an exploration challenge for getting there without spending a bunch of resources, and an ambush by assassins when you do arrive.  

Treat the mountain passes and such like a dungeon, when the environment is very much part of the challenge. At the end of that segment, the ancient temple is revealed, the Priestesses of yhe God try to betray the Year Queen to consolidate thier power. Fight with some blood clerics and assassins and whatever they summon, while keeping the assassins from ganking your new (hopefully) ally, ending (if victorious) in a temple to loot, a new ally who assumes full control of her Queendom (with DM notes on how to expand on the corruption of civilization in S&S using her vicious removal of those who oppose here’s she has now deposed the previous (arguably worse) regime, and a village of harvesters who would love to benefit from your newfound wealth by providing all manner of services and companionship.  

Notes for further play; what cost does the shared dream ritual have? Can the PCs get the villagers to agree to share that cost when the time comes? Will the Year Queen turned regular Queen remain an ally, and even if so will she remain herself long enough for her help to be a good thing? Will the countess demand a greater cost later on?


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 14, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> in no way did Conan like the way things were, he just knew that the only way to change his circumstance was to take matters in to his own hands.



Conan wasn't satisfied with his lot in life, but he knew that his world was one where he could rise to the top through strength of arms and force of personality. So yes, he was quite happy with the way the world worked. He wanted to change his position in it, but the world as such suited him just fine.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> Conan wasn't satisfied with his lot in life, but he knew that his world was one where he could rise to the top through strength of arms and force of personality. So yes, he was quite happy with the way the world worked. He wanted to change his position in it, but the world as such suited him just fine.



REH's Conan stories are full of criticisms of the Hyborian Age world, typically put into Conan's voice. See eg his monologue at the start of Queen of the Black Coast:

"By Crom, though I've spent considerable time among you civilized peoples, your ways are still beyond my comprehension.

"Well, last night in a tavern, a captain in the king's guard offered violence to the sweetheart of a young soldier, who naturally ran him through. But it seems there is some cursed law against killing guardsmen, and the boy and his girl fled away. It was bruited about that I was seen with them, and so today I was haled into court, and a judge asked me where the lad had gone. I replied that since he was a friend of mine, I could not betray him. Then the court waxed wroth, and the judge talked a great deal about my duty to the state, and society, and other things I did not understand, and bade me tell where my friend had flown. By this time I was becoming wrathful myself, for I had explained my position.

"But I choked my ire and held my peace, and the judge squalled that I had shown contempt for the court, and that I should be hurled into a dungeon to rot until I betrayed my friend. So then, seeing they were all mad, I drew my sword and cleft the judge's skull; then I cut my way out of the court, and seeing the high constable's stallion tied near by, I rode for the wharfs, where I thought to find a ship bound for foreign ports."​


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> REH's Conan stories are full of criticisms of the Hyborian Age world, typically put into Conan's voice. See eg his monologue at the start of Queen of the Black Coast:
> 
> "By Crom, though I've spent considerable time among you civilized peoples, your ways are still beyond my comprehension.​​"Well, last night in a tavern, a captain in the king's guard offered violence to the sweetheart of a young soldier, who naturally ran him through. But it seems there is some cursed law against killing guardsmen, and the boy and his girl fled away. It was bruited about that I was seen with them, and so today I was haled into court, and a judge asked me where the lad had gone. I replied that since he was a friend of mine, I could not betray him. Then the court waxed wroth, and the judge talked a great deal about my duty to the state, and society, and other things I did not understand, and bade me tell where my friend had flown. By this time I was becoming wrathful myself, for I had explained my position.​​"But I choked my ire and held my peace, and the judge squalled that I had shown contempt for the court, and that I should be hurled into a dungeon to rot until I betrayed my friend. So then, seeing they were all mad, I drew my sword and cleft the judge's skull; then I cut my way out of the court, and seeing the high constable's stallion tied near by, I rode for the wharfs, where I thought to find a ship bound for foreign ports."​



But he doesn't then go and try to change the world. Even though he disagrees with how things are done, he himself isn't affected by it: he can fight his way out of trouble. He doesn't worry about the common people who don't have his strength and who have to suffer the consequences of a corrupt system.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> But he doesn't then go and try to change the world. Even though he disagrees with how things are done, he himself isn't affected by it: he can fight his way out of trouble. He doesn't worry about the common people who don't have his strength and who have to suffer the consequences of a corrupt system.



thats quite a different position to your earlier premise that _*S&S the heroes like it the way it is*_ rather  Conan and others beleive that each person must live their own life and achieve their own freedom 'by their own hand'. Referencing permertons quote, no doubt Conan gave a small degree of admiration to the young soldier for standing upto the abusive guard and escaping with his sweetheart, that boy took action against the corrupt system and thus has worth in a s&s world


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> But he doesn't then go and try to change the world. Even though he disagrees with how things are done, he himself isn't affected by it: he can fight his way out of trouble. He doesn't worry about the common people who don't have his strength and who have to suffer the consequences of a corrupt system.



From The Phoenix on the Sword:

"When I overthrew the old dynasty," he [ie Conan] continued . . . "it was easy enough. . .

"When I overthrew Numedides, _then_ I was the Liberator - now they spit at my shadow. They have put a statue of that swine in the temple of Mitra, and people go and wail before it, hailing it as the holy effigy of a saintly monarch who was done to death by a red-handed barbarian. When I led her armies to victory as a mercenary, Aquilonia overlooked the fact that I was a foreigner, but now she can not forgive me.

"Now in Mitra's temple there come to burn incense to Numedide's memory, men whom his hangmen maimed and blinded, men whose sons died in his dungeons, whose wives and daughters were dragged into his seraglio. The fickle fools!"​
And from The Scarlet Citadel:

The streets of Tamar swarmed with howling mobs . . . The barons had deserted the royal capital, galloping away to secure their castles against marauding neighbours. The well-knit kingdom Conan had built up seemed tottering on the edge of dissolution, and commoners and merchants trembled at the imminence of a return of the feudalistic regime. The people howled for a king to protect them against their own aristocracy no less than foreign foes.​

I don't think that the texts bear out the notion that Conan is indifferent to the suffering of the common people. I think The Hour of the Dragon would reinforce this.

What makes it S&S rather than political melodrama is the _cause _of King Conan's problems. In The Phoenix on the Sword, Prospero begins by blaming the poet Rinaldo, who "sings songs that make men mad"; but Conan responds that "thre is something hidden, some undercurrent of which we are not aware". Of course that is Thoth-amon. In the Scarlet Citadel, the ultimate threat is not the armies of Ophir or Koth but Tsotha-lanti. And in The Hour of the Dragon its Xaltotun.

We can see (some of) the difference between REH's Conan and LotR in the relationships between politics and evil wizardry. In JRRT's work, victory over Sauron means re-establishing the rightful king and feudal regime. Establishing Faramir as a vassal of Aragorn in Ithilien is a _good _thing. Whereas in Conan, feudalism is caused by dark magic (and Stygia, which is REH's version of an "ancient and mysterious land", we have even darker magic giving us even less desirable and less modern forms of goverment) and defeating the evil wizards is a victory for individual will against social conformity.​


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 14, 2021)

Yora said:


> Again, as everyone else, you are welcome to prove me wrong.
> If you have examples of stories that feel like Sword & Sorcery and that have protagonists who are well integrated and influential people in their society and its institutions, who feel obligate to a duty to the public or loyalty to a lord, and who make attempts to solve conflicts through diplomacy and peaceful means, or delegate the dirty work to others, then I'd really be happy to hear them.
> 
> Conan becomes king, but he's not accepted by the people. Fafhrd and Gray Mouser are self-absorbed leeches. Elric may have a crown, but is exiled from his Empire in everything but name. Kane is the boogyman.
> Now Jirel can be assumed to be well respected and beloved as ruler of her domain, but all the stories take place away from her people so none of her status is of any use on her adventures. And she also descends alone into nightmarish realms with a sword in hand. I believe the same applies to Bran Mac Morn.



I believe I failed to clarify my point.

I'm not saying your three points are wrong.

I'm saying they're not particularly useful to distinguish S&S from other fantasy gaming.

Have a nice day.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Also, upthread @CapnZapp said that S&S doesn't involve moral heroes. But in most of the REH Conan stories Conan chooses to sacrifice his own self-interest (eg treasure he might take) to do the right thing as that is framed in the story (eg The Tower of the Elephant; Jewels of Gwahlur).



I tried to make the point that S&S heroes CAN do good deeds, but aren't expected to and aren't punished (by the story or the GM) when they choose not to.

This as contrast to both actually good-aligned characters from other fantasy AND the misunderstanding S&S heroes should be borderline evil.

Actually choosing to be good when you don't have to and aren't particularly rewarded for it is arguably stronger than how doing the right thing isn't a real choice in regular fantasy, since the scenario pretty much always takes it for granted and the GM thus runs out of preparation if you don't.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough...


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 14, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> in no way did Conan like the way things were, he just knew that the only way to change his circumstance was to take matters in to his own hands.



Sure but now we're back to: how does this help us set S&S apart?


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> REH's Conan stories are full of criticisms of the Hyborian Age world, typically put into Conan's voice. See eg his monologue at the start of Queen of the Black Coast:
> 
> "By Crom, though I've spent considerable time among you civilized peoples, your ways are still beyond my comprehension.
> 
> ...



Mental note: make sure to disarm Conan before bringing him before a judge.

In fact, have all the guards put away their swords too as he'll otherwise just take one of theirs.

Then have a dozen expert crossbowmen att the balustrade.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Also, upthread @CapnZapp said that S&S doesn't involve moral heroes. But in most of the REH Conan stories Conan chooses to sacrifice his own self-interest (eg treasure he might take) to do the right thing as that is framed in the story (eg The Tower of the Elephant; Jewels of Gwahlur).




Conan is kind of interesting that way.  In _Jewels of Gwahlur,_ he saves Muriela at the expense of the jewels he worked very, very hard to acquire. And for those who haven't read the story, Conan spent months researching, putting himself in a position to go to the sacred city with the treasure, and risking his neck but when he had to decide between the jewels and saving Muriela he saved her without hesitation. He just met her that afternoon so it's not like he had a strong connection to her. But Conan wasn't the least bit angry and just decided to move on to his next scheme which he figured Muriela would be valuable to him. On the flip side, Conan sees nothing wrong with taking up a life of piracy raiding the coast with Bêlit or banditry as leader of Afghuli hillmen.


----------



## TimWest (Jul 14, 2021)

I think the story of Conan being dragged into something is a good example of how to start an S&S adventure. It shows how difficult it is to just live in peace and be left alone. Because the environment is one in which people are all fighting to get ahead in some way. It's hard not to be affected somehow. 

It's not good enough to want to just opt out and as I said before, you need to run just in order to stand still. 

Characters need to get out there, do their best to acquire wealth, power, skills etc. because the world is going to be beating you down continually.


----------



## Yora (Jul 14, 2021)

Someone mentioned reputation earlier, and I think that could actually be a cool mechanic to track separately from experience.
Somewhat paradoxically, I think most Sword & Sorcery protagonists actually crave validation. Generally not to be loved by the masses, because the masses are stupid and keep supporting a social system that is against their interests. And to characters like these, being hated is not a bad thing when it's by the people they consider idiots and villains. Many of those characters who display a lot of antisocial behavior do it to assert their power. They do what they want and nobody can stop them. Or they do what they know to be right, knowing that it will piss of a lot of people, and enjoy that they are chipping away at their mistaken believes.

Having reputation as a mechanic that influences how NPCs defer to their demands could probably be a nice motivator for players.

Worlds Without Number has an interesting system (which I have not tried yet in action), in which the players can decide to make lasting changes to the society around them, and the scale and degree of the change determines the cost in Reputation points they have to invest to make it happen. These costs can very quickly get pretty outrageous when all the relevant circumstances are factored, so there are various ways to reduce the cost. One way is to alter the circumstances through adventures, like literally destroying opposition to their goal. Another one is to throw money at it, which can be bribes, donations, financing public works, or whatever the players can think of that would make some of those people happy that they need to get on their side. (Seems like a great way to make money desirable and get players to spend large sums.)
And if after all of that, they still don't have the reputation to swing things around, the PCs can always go on other adventures to gain additional fame with impressive deeds, which will make people take their demands more seriously when they return.


CapnZapp said:


> Sure but now we're back to: how does this help us set S&S apart?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 14, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Fine. But the trappings matter. It's an established method of gameplay alright but what you feel you can do in the world and how NPCs react matter.
> 
> The fact you could have the exact same story in Forgotten Reams and Hyboria doesn't mean S&S isn't its own thing.




I agree wholeheartedly! I already wrote pretty extensively on it (both here, and prior threads). The comment you were responding to was because the OP didn't want further discussion of the _trappings or genre of S&S _(at the time, apparently), but only on the _hook_ used to start the S&S adventure, which I had trouble understanding for the reasons I explained.

@pemerton Your thorough knowledge of REH and Conan is, as always, appreciated, but I'd like to throw in a small quibble, and also expand on a very good point you made.

First, I think you've acknowledged that you aren't familiar with Lieber et al. ("I've never read Leiber and haven't read much Moorcock.") While REH's Conan is, of course, S&S, we can't single-source a genre. The difficulty in making pronouncements about S&S as a genre is just that- at a minimum, it encompasses REH's Conan, Lieber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, and Moorcock's Elric- which have similarities, but also disparate elements. 

In that sense, S&S is very much like film noir, in that the genre borders are difficult to understand. 

But I wanted to concentrate on something you said separately which I completely agree with, albeit perhaps I might quibble with a little bit of the phrasing given we are talking about a literary genre:

_But as I see it the main contrast between S&S and JRRT-ish fantasy is that the former is modernist, even sometime existentialist - it presents the world as inherently lacking in value, and it is the action of the protagonists that imposes truth and meaning on the world - whereas JRRT-ish fantasy is conservative - it posits a world laden with meaning, and the path of heroism is identifying that meaning and having the faith and courage to act in accordance with it._

I would start by saying that S&S is not modernist in the literary sense, although it is modern. Just a small definitional quibble, given that I wouldn't want people to confuse the genre and think that Howard and Lieber are writing in the same vein as Joyce and Faulkner. Sure, a person can make the argument that REH, Lieber, Moorcock et al. are part of the pre-war proto-modernist movement (Conrad, et al.) but that's a topic for another time- anyway, I think that it would be better to say modern.

And here, I think you are exactly correct. S&S is, essentially, modern fantasy, while high fantasy (Tolkien, et al.) is essentially small-c "conservative" fantasy. Most Tolkien-esque fantasy has, in addition to the usual "high magic," the following:
A. A world (way of life) that is either under attack and needs to be defended from outside ("evil") forces, or a world that has succumbed to those evil forces and needs to be restored.
B. A protagonist who is a protagonist of right. Whether it's bloodline (Harry Potter), or destiny (Taran), or there's a hidden king somewhere or other (Strider/Aragorn), there is always a protagonist that that is awesome because s/he was just born that way. 

I think you are 100% correct in noting that S&S tends to eschew these conservative aspects of high fantasy. In fact, if I had to compare it to any genre, I would probably say it is most similar to the "hardboiled," - another pulp genre that is modern, and rejected the older detective approach (Christie, Doyle). In hardboiled, you usually have the characters dealing with a modern and industrial system that choose to operate outside of the system, rendering them morally ambiguous at times (anti-heroes), even when they act in moral fashion.

Finally, to move this full circle, the irony of all of this is that D&D started by reflecting, in many ways, the S&S traditions- while Tolkien was undoubtedly an influence, S&S was still a strong and recognized influence in both the game and in fantasy literature. Over time, however, D&D (and the playing groups) incorporated more small-c conservative genre aspects from Tolkien and the glut of Tolkien imitators from the late 70s and 80s in the very fallow fantasy field.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think you've acknowledged that you aren't familiar with Lieber et al. ("I've never read Leiber and haven't read much Moorcock.") While REH's Conan is, of course, S&S, we can't single-source a genre. The difficulty in making pronouncements about S&S as a genre is just that- at a minimum, it encompasses REH's Conan, Lieber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, and Moorcock's Elric- which have similarities, but also disparate elements.
> 
> In that sense, S&S is very much like film noir, in that the genre borders are difficult to understand.



Sure. I think S&S has to be understood as encompassing more than just REH. I just get a bit bemused by pronouncements that _such-and-such is not part of S&S _when REH stories are replete with _such-and-such_.

I get the impression, by reputation, that Leiber's stories involve less moral/honourable protagonists than REH's Conan. Though I don't know if that's true.

I'm also not sure if The Dying Earth should be included in S&S or not - Vance definitely presents moral/honourable conduct in a very different light from REH, but this feeds through to the world in general. The whole thing is cynical in a way that Conan isn't, and that I think Moorcock isn't either (though some Moorcock _characters_ might be).



Snarf Zagyg said:


> But I wanted to concentrate on something you said separately which I completely agree with, albeit perhaps I might quibble with a little bit of the phrasing given we are talking about a literary genre:
> 
> _But as I see it the main contrast between S&S and JRRT-ish fantasy is that the former is modernist, even sometime existentialist - it presents the world as inherently lacking in value, and it is the action of the protagonists that imposes truth and meaning on the world - whereas JRRT-ish fantasy is conservative - it posits a world laden with meaning, and the path of heroism is identifying that meaning and having the faith and courage to act in accordance with it._
> 
> ...



I fully agree with what you say about "hardboiled"/pulp detective fiction. I had almost made a post contrasting And Then There Were None with The Maltese Falcon, but held back because I've never actually seen the 1945 Christie film.

I think I might see more continuity between this "post-Victorian" style and modernism in the stricter sense than you do, but that seems pretty tangential to the main point. My criticism is amateur whereas my philosophy and social theory is professional, and by "modernism" I'm meaning more in thematic or politico-social terms than as an artistic movement. (And I certainly don't want to say that REH is an author who, in either technical or artistic terms, is on a par with (say) Hemingway; on the other hand I think the authors of WotC D&D books could learn a lot from reading REH and giving their work a good edit!)

I'll finish with a paragraph (or two, as it turns out) that is (are) probably more controversial (vis-a-vis you and probably vis-a-vis other posters too). I think that one problem with trying to "do S&S" using D&D is that D&D has already muddied the waters quite a bit. On the one hand, D&D is replete with the tropes of "high fantasy"/conservative romance - paladins, many clerics, Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarves and Orcs, many non-Planescape readings of the alignment system, etc.

On the other hand, the typical interpretation of dice rolls in D&D (as best I can tell from entirely non-scientific observation) is that they represent the workings of a cold, impersonal universe. Gygax's protestations to the contrary (eg in his discussions in his DMG of the fact that higher hp, and better saving throws and other abilities, represent the interventions of supernatural forces in favour of the PCs) never really seem to have taken hold. I'm not even sure Gygax believed them in his actual play, despite having written them in his rulebook. And this is S&S through-and-through: a universe without providence, and in which "fate" is just a label for what a person makes of him-/herself. I think this can sometimes make it a bit hard to focus on exactly what needs to be done to D&D to more purely align it with S&S play.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I'll finish with a paragraph (or two, as it turns out) that is (are) probably more controversial (vis-a-vis you and probably vis-a-vis other posters too). I think that one problem with trying to "do S&S" using D&D is that D&D has already muddied the waters quite a bit. On the one hand, D&D is replete with the tropes of "high fantasy"/conservative romance - paladins, many clerics, Tolkienesque Elves and Dwarves and Orcs, many non-Planescape readings of the alignment system, etc.




On this, specifically, I would say that D&D has always been both a composite and its own thing; _however_:

1. D&D, originally, was based primarily in S&S tropes, and glommed on to the Tolkien-esque "high fantasy" trappings because, um, Tolkien was popular during the 1970s. Saying D&D was high fantasy is similar to saying that Led Zeppelin was high fantasy- it had it, but it wasn't of it. If that makes sense. Sure, no one should buy what Gygax had to say (the influence of Tolien in some areas was indisputable), but the overall influence of the S&S works is even greater.

2. The alignment system of OD&D was hardcore Moorcock. Making it even more codified in early AD&D didn't lessen the influences.

3. The multiple material worlds, gonzo nature of the early D&D was also exceptionally in keeping with S&S. The multiverse, including the existence of "Earth" is practically lifted from _The Swords of Lankhmar._

4. Even the early modules and the hoary tropes (what adventures wait for us at ye olde inne!) are firmly based in S&S genre.

Personally, I would say that the shift away from the composite/heavy S&S model in D&D to more explicit Tolkien-esque occurred with ... Dragonlance. 

But that's neither here nor there. Maybe an essay for another time.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 14, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> First, I think you've acknowledged that you aren't familiar with Lieber et al. ("I've never read Leiber and haven't read much Moorcock.") While REH's Conan is, of course, S&S, we can't single-source a genre. The difficulty in making pronouncements about S&S as a genre is just that- at a minimum, it encompasses REH's Conan, Lieber's Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, and Moorcock's Elric- which have similarities, but also disparate elements.
> 
> In that sense, S&S is very much like film noir, in that the genre borders are difficult to understand.
> 
> ...



I suspect another difference between what we regard as High/Heroic/Epic Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery likely has  to do with their literary precursors. Heroic Fantasy was strongly rooted in mytho-historical cycles/sagas and literary epics of old (e.g., Beowulf, Der Niebelungenlied, Arthurian Romance, The Iliad, Paradise Lost, etc.). Tolkien wanted to create an epic for mythic Britain. C.S. Lewis wanted to create a Christian allegory mythos. Lloyd Alexander was writing around a Brythonic/Welsh mythos. 

In contrast, Sword & Sorcery came out of pulp adventure, short stories, Weird Tales, Edgar Rice Burroughs, etc. So we tend to think of Sword & Sorcery in terms of the adventures of Conan or the adventures of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser or the adventures of Elric. Sword & Sorcery _tends to_ feel more episodic as a result. I think that this dovetails nicely with your point about hardboiled fiction, which, as you say, was another genre of pulp. 

Obviously there are exceptions, such as the Finnish epic being inspiration for both Tolkien (i.e., Turin Turambar) and Moorcock (i.e., Elric). Also, Moorcock's Multiverse is something of a mythos, but it was primarily a gimmick for him to tell variations of stories set on different worlds and with different characters but with similar themes.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I suspect another difference between what we regard as High/Heroic/Epic Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery likely has  to do with their literary precursors. Heroic Fantasy was strongly rooted in mytho-historical cycles/sagas and literary epics of old (e.g., Beowulf, Der Niebelungenlied, Arthurian Romance, The Iliad, Paradise Lost, etc.). Tolkien wanted to create an epic for mythic Britain. C.S. Lewis wanted to create a Christian allegory mythos.



One doesn't want to collide with board rules, but it's pretty hard to ignore the theological character - and not abstract/intellectual but _committed_ theological character - of a lot of romantic/high fantasy. Whereas REH Conan (and it seems to me, admittedly on a thinner evidence based, Moorcock and Vance) seem essentially atheistic.

Weaker high fantasy can bowdlerise this, of course - and maybe a lot of D&D falls into that territory. And likewise I think some weaker S&S bowdlerises in the other direction (I'm thinking of eg RPG-y stuff that takes the Cthulhu Mythos but gives it a type of evil theistic or "hostile-providential" reading).

@Snarf Zagyg's suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins. I think in S&S-oriented D&D they really have to go. Likewise clerics in the traditional sense. Likewise, I would say, druids and rangers - because these imply the possibility of a type of holistic integration of humanity and nature which I think conflicts with the "existentialist" (if that's not going too far) strand in S&S.

Wizards and of course warlocks are fine. And maybe bards. (I don't have enough of a handle on contemporary sorcerers to comment on them. I think 4e ones would be fine.)

I don't think it's a coincidence that this comes close to (not identical to) the Dark Sun class list!


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> From The Phoenix on the Sword:
> 
> "When I overthrew the old dynasty," he [ie Conan] continued . . . "it was easy enough. . .​​"When I overthrew Numedides, _then_ I was the Liberator - now they spit at my shadow. They have put a statue of that swine in the temple of Mitra, and people go and wail before it, hailing it as the holy effigy of a saintly monarch who was done to death by a red-handed barbarian. When I led her armies to victory as a mercenary, Aquilonia overlooked the fact that I was a foreigner, but now she can not forgive me.​​"Now in Mitra's temple there come to burn incense to Numedide's memory, men whom his hangmen maimed and blinded, men whose sons died in his dungeons, whose wives and daughters were dragged into his seraglio. The fickle fools!"​
> And from The Scarlet Citadel:
> ...



Fair enough, and I'm not married to the idea that S&S heroes don't want to change the world. But I'm not convinced that Conan seized the throne of Aquilonia out of altruism more than opportunism.

What I should perhaps have said - and again, I'm not married to the idea - is that in S&S there's a greater sense of fatalism than in heroic fantasy, and less hopefulness. The world is as it is, and we're just trying to make our way in it.

This is reflected in stories by the general acceptance of corruption, inequality, evil counsellors, pirates, slavers, thieves and assassins. In gameplay, this means that virtually every NPC and every situation can become a hook or a challenge, as long as the players accept that their job isn't to rid the world of evil.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> @Snarf Zagyg's suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins.




 I think that you put far too much emphasis on the inclusion of Paladins (_Three Hearts and Three Lions_). 

I have a whole 'nother post about the origins of the subclasses in OD&D (and from there, AD&D). It was all ad hoc, and the introduction of separate subclasses (or even NPC classes in Dragon) isn't about the overall gestalt of the game.

Instead, the introduction of the module-on-rails, party with a destiny, and setting as explicit small-c conservative (as in Dragonlance, and definitely NOT Greyhawk) is the most obvious turn.


----------



## Bilharzia (Jul 14, 2021)

*Monster Island,* an excellent campaign supplement for RuneQuest6/Mythras (and most BRP games) has some suggestions in its Campaign chapter. The chapter discusses these at length but these are the headlines:

First, this campaign supplement happens to be a_* sandbox *_which has its own definitions, but one that also fits a picaresque hero which aligns quite well with sword & sorcery.
So, a sandbox -

*Not Everything is Meant to be Killed.*
No good & evil amongst competing groups. NPCs can be met and interacted with as the players choose, likely with consequences later on. Your system should be tough and dangerous for the PCs (in this it's RQ6/Mythras). Prudence is the best protection.

*There is no Game Balance.*
The wilderness is filled with danger, this should be a prompt for inventiveness on the part of the players. Death and maiming is possible and even likely. Roll up several characters.

*Every Action has a Consequence.*
The sandbox region and inhabitants are dynamic, nothing remains static. Not all consequences are bad though, alliances may be formed.

*Options and Objectives.*
Overarching campaign plots are not necessary although the threads can be there to be picked up by players & PCs.

*~Genre aspects of Sword & Sorcery~*
The sandbox provides the framework within which a S&S game can be played:

* - Living for the Day*
Adventures are at a personal level. Quests are pragmatic not epic.

* - No Black & White Morality*
Flawed heroes, who do not reflect modern sensibilities.

* - Healing is Hard*
Magical healing is rare in S&S. This makes repetitive combat very dangerous.

* - The Corrupting Power of Magic*
Magic can be huge and sorcerers sacrifice personal morality. Magic is terrifying and deadly.

* - Horror of the Unknown*
The places and creatures encountered are strange, mysterious and alien (sometimes literally).

* - Anthropocentric and Xenophobic*
The protagonists are human, and most of the foes are too. When non-humans are met, they are almost always adversaries.


----------



## TimWest (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> This is reflected in stories by the general acceptance of corruption, inequality, evil counsellors, pirates, slavers, thieves and assassins. In gameplay, this means that virtually every NPC and every situation can become a hook or a challenge, as long as the players accept that their job isn't to rid the world of evil.



This chimes with how I see things. There's a lot of 'bad' stuff happening in the world and the characters can try to change it if they want, or it could impact them at any moment. But it's not necessarily an obvious thing that must be solved by the heroes.

I feel that in other kinds of fantasy characters will be much more likely to feel like they must fight injustice. Almost like a narrative magnet, this must be done because that's what heroes do.

What this means for gaming IMO is creating factions, NPCs etc that are doing their own thing. Much more of a sandbox approach. The world keeps turning whether the characters get involved or not. And sometimes the characters are impacted by the turning of the world.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 14, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think that you put far too much emphasis on the inclusion of Paladins (_Three Hearts and Three Lions_).



On the subject of paladins, I think the Elenium series by David Eddings provides an excellent portrayal of how paladins can work in S&S. I'm not saying the books are strictly S&S, but they definitely come close in tone and feel. (I never finished the follow-up series, because it got a bit silly. An army of 400,000 Church Knights, if I recall correctly. And Eddings's "let's all have a group hug" style got very irksome.)


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> One doesn't want to collide with board rules, but it's pretty hard to ignore the theological character - and not abstract/intellectual but _committed_ theological character - of a lot of romantic/high fantasy. Whereas REH Conan (and it seems to me, admittedly on a thinner evidence based, Moorcock and Vance) seem essentially atheistic.
> 
> Weaker high fantasy can bowdlerise this, of course - and maybe a lot of D&D falls into that territory. And likewise I think some weaker S&S bowdlerises in the other direction (I'm thinking of eg RPG-y stuff that takes the Cthulhu Mythos but gives it a type of evil theistic or "hostile-providential" reading).



I would, in general, agree with this idea. Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles aren't exactly theological, though they do tend to echo some of the ideas of Tolkien (e.g., the foretold rightful king, end of the BBEG, the journey to the west, etc.). 



pemerton said:


> @Snarf Zagyg's suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins. I think in S&S-oriented D&D they really have to go. Likewise clerics in the traditional sense. Likewise, I would say, druids and rangers - because these imply the possibility of a type of holistic integration of humanity and nature which I think conflicts with the "existentialist" (if that's not going too far) strand in S&S.
> 
> Wizards and of course warlocks are fine. And maybe bards. (I don't have enough of a handle on contemporary sorcerers to comment on them. I think 4e ones would be fine.)
> 
> I don't think it's a coincidence that this comes close to (not identical to) the Dark Sun class list!



I agree that there are antithetical elements to S&S present before Dragonlance. However, I would say that in terms of overall trends, that Dragonlance (and possibly Ravenloft*) turned D&D with greater force towards heroic fantasy. I also don't think it's exactly a coincidence that OSR points to Dragonlance as "the beginning of the end" for Old School play in their revisionist historiographical narrative. 

* Ravenloft is rooted in a Victorian romance that was itself quite small 'c' conservative and moralizing in its own regard.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I also don't think it's exactly a coincidence that OSR points to Dragonlance as "the beginning of the end" for Old School play in their revisionist historiographical narrative.



I just wanted to acknowledge you for bringing up historiography in any context outside of the classroom.  Kudos to you.  I've never particularly thought about it, but it'd be interesting to see how our thoughts on the history of the history of gaming has changed over the years.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 14, 2021)

By the way, am I the only one here who started out preferring heroic/epic fantasy in their teens, but now 30+ years later finds themself more drawn to S&S? Is it a shift from idealism to cynicism as we grow older?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> By the way, am I the only one here who started out preferring heroic/epic fantasy in their teens, but now 30+ years later finds themself more drawn to S&S? Is it a shift from idealism to cynicism as we grow older?



I read, and enjoyed, Conan comics before I read LotR. I read REH Howard after I'd (first) read LotR.

I find LotR more profound, and more moving, and go back to it very often. (Also the Silmarillion. Much less The Hobbit. Occasionally Unfinished Tales.)

I like the brisk place and the clearly-drawn conceptions of REH's Conan. It entertains me. It doesn't really move me.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> By the way, am I the only one here who started out preferring heroic/epic fantasy in their teens, but now 30+ years later finds themself more drawn to S&S? Is it a shift from idealism to cynicism as we grow older?



I started out with the Hobbit and Redwall. Then when my father knew that I was beginning to read fantasy, he drove me over to his parents' house - which still had many of his old books - and he introduced me to a whole bunch of pulp fantasy, including Moorcock's Multiverse, the Barsoom Chronicles, etc. I went from that to Chronicles of Prydain and Lord of the Rings. Then I got caught in the whole wave of '90s Epic Megasaga Fantasy that now leaves me cold as I felt that the novel had become a lost art among fantasy writers who favored epic fantasy series that went nowhere. I think that there has been a more gradual move back to the fantasy novel, though it's still overshadowed by megasaga series. 

Nowadays, I find LotR a bit of a protracted slog to get through, but I have a much easier time re-reading The Silmarillion and The Hobbit. I would agree with @pemerton that I think that Tolkien's romanticism is better at stoking the quiet embers of my heart, but that Moorcock was better at stoking the wild fires of my imagination. 

Right now I am going back to Moorcock, but starting with Corum. It has been a long while since I have reread Elric, and that will likely be next.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I find LotR a bit of a protracted slog to get through



I can't say I've read the Old Forest or even Tom Bombadil sequences as many times as the stuff either side of them . . .


----------



## MGibster (Jul 14, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> By the way, am I the only one here who started out preferring heroic/epic fantasy in their teens, but now 30+ years later finds themself more drawn to S&S? Is it a shift from idealism to cynicism as we grow older?



I think any story about a man living life according to his own values and has the strength, cunning, and will to fight and win against those who oppose him is somewhat idealistic.  But over the years I have also come to prefer a little more "realism" over the fantastic and I don't associate that with cynicism.  As much fun as D&D is, the violence, at least the magical violence, is too akin to a cartoon for me to take it overly seriously.


----------



## Yora (Jul 14, 2021)

Eherm...

I know you guys are having a great discussion about genre and its cultural context. But that is a discussion for another topic. The topic here is gamemastering advice on the practical issues of preparing adventures with a Sword & Sorcery feel.
As you all can clearly see, every Sword & Sorcery discussion has an overwhelming tendency to go off topic and turn into arguing about genre. So I have to be somewhat pedantic here to really keep this strictly on topic. Some attempts have been made, but they keep getting immediately burried by more discussions about the genre.

Though at this point it might be easier to rename this one and start a new topic for actual adventures.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 14, 2021)

I think you need to decide what elements give a story that S&S feel, then you can think about implementing in an adventure.

Of all the possibilities raised above (disregarding the "but epic/heroic fantasy does _this_ instead"), what do you think makes up S&S?


----------



## Yora (Jul 14, 2021)

Alright, so renaming the thread and starting a separate discussion for adventures it is. Everyone disregard what I said earlier and discuss the definition of Sword & Sorcery to your hearts content.

To me, Sword & Sorcery is a style of heroic fantasy that centers on protagonists who exist outside the social rules that bind most people, either by circumstances or choice; who deal with issues that affect them personally rather than people they don't know in far away places; and who face the dangers they encounter head on and don't leave it to others to get dirty.
It's a style rooted in Romanticism, in being unconverned with reason, logic, or morals, but rather with how things make the protagonist feel. You tend to have societies that are uncaring or outright cruel, which make the protagonists reject their customs and rules to assert their own individual agency. Magic and monsters are treated as something truly supernatural or outright unnatural, which is incompatible with the everyday life of normal people. And even just facing magic and fighting or resisting it is a major factor in what removes the characters from normal society.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 14, 2021)

pemerton said:


> That's why paladins fit right into heroic fantasy - the hand of providence is ever-present! - whereas S&S only has magicians and evil high priests. (REH's Conan has the occasional hint of a beneficent priest of Isis or Mitra. I think if those hints were taken any further, it would undermine the basic ethos of the stories.)



I think the lack of Paladins in S&S is more a failure to imagine faith in a world where there is no cosmic reward for it. The world of Conan wouldn’t have Paladins of Crom, because Crom sucks. But Ancients Paladins dedicated to the Wild and to opposing the corruption of evil sorcerers? Yeah that’s exactly the sort of character I’d want to play.  

A S&S Paladin can be a person who walks into the darkness sword in hand because they have the MIGHT to bring people back out of it, or at least stop it spreading, and who else is gonna do it? The Paladin’s faith can be in people and purpose, it needn’t be in gods.


----------



## ART! (Jul 14, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think the lack of Paladins in S&S is more a failure to imagine faith in a world where there is no cosmic reward for it. The world of Conan wouldn’t have Paladins of Crom, because Crom sucks. But Ancients Paladins dedicated to the Wild and to opposing the corruption of evil sorcerers? Yeah that’s exactly the sort of character I’d want to play.
> 
> A S&S Paladin can be a person who walks into the darkness sword in hand because they have the MIGHT to bring people back out of it, or at least stop it spreading, and who else is gonna do it? The Paladin’s faith can be in people and purpose, it needn’t be in gods.



This.

I think most if not all classes can work in S&S, if you look past the names and descriptions and instead look at what the class _does_.

I feel much the same way about races, in that i see no need for S&S to be all or mostly human PCs.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> A S&S Paladin can be a person who walks into the darkness sword in hand because they have the MIGHT to bring people back out of it, or at least stop it spreading, and who else is gonna do it? The Paladin’s faith can be in people and purpose, it needn’t be in gods.



I don't see how what you describe here is any different from Conan on a heroic day. It's not a holy warrior with divine providence on his/her side.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 14, 2021)

Bilharzia said:


> * - Healing is Hard*
> Magical healing is rare in S&S. This makes repetitive combat very dangerous.



This is pretty much just a huge aside, but this triggers me.

The notion "combat is scarily dangerous" just doesn't work in any genre where you're meant to fight a lot. 

If you fight a lot, combat isn't very dangerous because otherwise your characters would never live to see the end of the campaign.

You CAN make games where combat actually IS dangerous, but then the emphasis needs to lie in other areas: intrigue games, spy games, social games.

RuneQuest is a game who many people actually think is more dangerous than a game like D&D (that definitely is upfront with its hero-guarding mechanisms). But just because you don't have levels or hit points doesn't mean your game is very dangerous. Or.. it is, and your premise is fatally flawed, unless you're into sadistic self-harm.

My point is: stop pretending combat is very dangerous. 

Now then, many will go "okay so one combat isn't dangerous but multiple combats without rest might well be". That is, resource management. 

But the thing is - that's not very fun. There is a school of thought in D&D-dom which says that the first 4 or 5 fights aren't supposed to be individually life-threatening, but the 6th or 7th such fight might well be, simply because you're now so low on resources, that you capacity to bounce back has been depleted.

But this amounts to repetitive drawn-out play. Having individual combats (or short sequences thereof) are much more exciting, and immediately fulfilling. Which is why that is how most versions of D&D are actually played, regardless of what each version's designers had in mind.

---

Anyway, combat is definitely a staple in S&S, and using a game engine where combat is a penalty (such as those games where other things are a focus thus allowing them to treat combat as a true risk) and not a reward (it is very much a reward in D&D) is not my idea of fun.

I will now return you to your scheduled programming.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 14, 2021)

@CapnZapp I saw that too, and had much the same response as you did. REH's Conan stories feature quite a bit of fighting, and Conan survives it.

I don't think that has to be a reason to use D&D hp as a system; but I think a S&S game needs to make combat a pretty viable form of dealing with the PCs' problems!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't see how what you describe here is any different from Conan on a heroic day. It's not a holy warrior with divine providence on his/her side.



when playing a paladin, I don't give a half a damn about divine providence. That's what clerics are for. I'm playing a knight with a creed, whose power comes from faith in that creed. 

If you don't see the difference between that character and Conan, especially if it's because you're acting like Conan's "heroic days" can be compared to a whole character, then i doubt we have much we can discuss on the topic.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 15, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think the lack of Paladins in S&S is more a failure to imagine faith in a world where there is no cosmic reward for it. The world of Conan wouldn’t have Paladins of Crom, because Crom sucks. But Ancients Paladins dedicated to the Wild and to opposing the corruption of evil sorcerers? Yeah that’s exactly the sort of character I’d want to play.
> 
> A S&S Paladin can be a person who walks into the darkness sword in hand because they have the MIGHT to bring people back out of it, or at least stop it spreading, and who else is gonna do it? The Paladin’s faith can be in people and purpose, it needn’t be in gods.



In Black Collosus Yasmela seeks advice from the Oracle of Mitra and is told to go to the street and entrust the defence of the Kingdom to the first man she meets - that man is of course Conan. I’d be happy to stretch that to mean Conan was chosen by Mitra as his favoured Champion

Even more so in comics, a couple of times when Mitra has given Conan a direct blessing while Conan is fighting Demons.


----------



## Yora (Jul 15, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> My point is: stop pretending combat is very dangerous.



I think what people really mean by it is "there should be a theoretical possibility that not everyone always survives if the group picks stupidly dangerous fights".
Victory over everythig not being a given is not actually a standard for all games.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> In Black Collosus Yasmela seeks advice from the Oraclke of Mitra and is told to go to the street and entrust the defence of the Kingdom to the first man she meets - that man is of course Conan. I’d be happy to stretch that to mean Conan was chosen by Mitra as his favoured Champion
> 
> Even more so in comics, a couple of times when Mitra has given Conan a direct blessing while Conan is fighting Demons.



These would fall under the "hints" I mentioned upthread. There is also this sort of thing in The Phoenix on the Sword and The Hour of the Dragon.

But lean too far into it and your S&S is suddenly no different from your LotR-ish "Frodo was _meant_ to have the ring" except that the warriors have mightier thews!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 15, 2021)

Tonguez said:


> In Black Collosus Yasmela seeks advice from the Oracle of Mitra and is told to go to the street and entrust the defence of the Kingdom to the first man she meets - that man is of course Conan. I’d be happy to stretch that to mean Conan was chosen by Mitra as his favoured Champion
> 
> Even more so in comics, a couple of times when Mitra has given Conan a direct blessing while Conan is fighting Demons.



Sure, and if you take that idea and make it part of the character's background, and make their main driving motivation be to based on a creed, and you've got an S&S paladin. But an S&S paladin should be, in flavor and roleplay, more like Roland Deschain than like Gawain of The Round Table. Divine Smite is unnaturally accurate hits, maybe just replace Lay on Hands with something because honestly why are Paladins healing so much anyway? 

Heck, even turning creatures works, you just roleplay it as having iron and obscure plants and knowing the words in ancient languages that certain creatures can't stand to hear, and being the sort of character whose eyes flash with command as their voice cracks like thunder.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't think that has to be a reason to use D&D hp as a system; but I think a S&S game needs to make combat a pretty viable form of dealing with the PCs' problems!



To be sure, just because I have said upthread D&D5 is a surprisingly good basis for S&S (with the implication that many other iterations aren't, simply because they're too fiddly and detail-oriented) doesn't mean I am also saying [insert other game here] is bad at S&S.

I _would_ like to go to the lengths of suggesting the argument D&D5 is possibly better at S&S than actual D&D has at least _some_ merit. (What makes D&D5 too unnuanced and un-crunchy for many players is exactly what makes it a great foundation for S&S)

Cheers


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 15, 2021)

Yora said:


> I think what people really mean by it is "there should be a theoretical possibility that not everyone always survives if the group picks stupidly dangerous fights".
> Victory over everythig not being a given is not actually a standard for all games.



Well, with that definition every game fits, since it's just a matter of defining "stupidly dangerous".

The point is instead that we can put every ttrpg into one out of three categories:

On one hand we have games where combat is intended to be avoidable, and where ending up in combat can kill you (and by the laws of mathematical averages, actually _will_ kill you if you don't avoid enough combats). This isn't quite a theoretical category, but it is by far the smallest and least popular one. I am only vaguely familiar with these games since I don't play them.

On the other hand we have games focused on combat, and combat-as-sport specifically. Whatever you or WotC may say about "equal pillars", the game is really all about combat, and upgrading your character to have fun doing combat. Avoiding combat is mostly just losing out on adventure.

Then we have the middle category, which I could derisively call "people who are bad at math". Games that purport to belong to the first category, but mathematical analysis proves they really belong to the latter. You might not have levels and hit points, but you have enough defensive reactions and action points and what not that in practice you still aren't dying. Personally I don't have time for games that try to hide the real probabilities behind nonsense like dice pools and convoluted multi-step procedures, but that might just be me being baseline proficient in maths.

But let me take a (likely) obscure example: the Swedish-language Samuraj game. As you might guess it's a game set in feudal Japan. What might surprise you is that it uses a pretty standard fantasy game engine (in the simplest terms, it's Basic Role-Playing), which is exceedingly lethal. Attacks hit a specified body part. You maybe have 4 hit points in each of those. But weapons still deal basically the same damage as in D&D - so a sword deals 1D8 damage, for instance. Ouch. If we disregard dodging and armor it's easy to see that this is a combat-as-war game. So it's all down to specific adventure scenarios.

Some work (almost regardless of your "level" you will die to an entire rabble of bandits, but if as soon as you cut the head bandit in half every one else flees, congrats, we have a writer that understands math) and some don't (if you're expected to have your standard half-dozen fights as you infiltrate the evil castle, as if you were having this scenario in yer bog standard D&D game, we have a writer that is completely oblivious to math).

Something like that. Anyway, we're off topic.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 15, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> To be sure, just because I have said upthread D&D5 is a surprisingly good basis for S&S (with the implication that many other iterations aren't, simply because they're too fiddly and detail-oriented) *doesn't mean I am also saying [insert other game here] is bad at S&S.*
> 
> I _would_ like to go to the lengths of suggesting the argument D&D5 is possibly better at S&S than actual D&D has at least _some_ merit. (What makes D&D5 too unnuanced and un-crunchy for many players is exactly what makes it a great foundation for S&S)
> 
> Cheers



Keeping the bold in mind, Worlds Without Number - which Keven Crawford built on B/X - is probably one of the better D&D-adjacent games for S&S as of late. It's setting is mostly dying earth and weird science fantasy, but it does pretty well with capturing a lot of the S&S feel. I suspect that Rob Schwalb's currently-in-playtest Tales of the Weird Wizard will as well.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I _would_ like to go to the lengths of suggesting the argument D&D5 is possibly better at S&S than actual D&D has at least _some_ merit. (What makes D&D5 too unnuanced and un-crunchy for many players is exactly what makes it a great foundation for S&S)



What is _actual D&D_ in this context?


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> What is _actual D&D_ in this context?



I don't know either, because B/X and 1e derived games of the OSR movement seem mostly geared towards S&S fantasy.


----------



## Yora (Jul 15, 2021)

Worlds without number is currently my system of choice for the next campaign I am planning.
The spell selection needs a complete overhaul, but otherwise it looks pretty neat.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 15, 2021)

Yora said:


> (The attempt to have a discussion about practical gamemaster advice for adventures and not debate the definition of Sword & Sorcery for the umpteenth time again failed as immediately and thoroughly as all Sword & Sorcery threads always do. Another attempt is being made here. This thread is now about debating the definition of Sword & Sorcery.)
> 
> Sword & Sorcery is a somewhat old fashioned style of heroic fantasy that is primarily really just a somewhat more specific style of aesthetics and tone. While there's been a good number of RPGs in recent decades that bill themselves as Sword & Sorcery games, most are rally just regular D&D without elves, dwarves, and clerics.
> 
> ...




My approach to this has always been a little old fashioned I think. I just read a conan story and get an adventure idea from it. To me, rather than coming up with a list of things that need to be present, I just immerse myself in that kind of material, and draw on it for adventure and situation ideas.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2021)

S&S combat, in RPGing, isn't necessarily just about degree of dangerousness. It might also be about how it plays out - eg as a player I might want to experience the flashing blades, pantherish dodges and straining thews.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> S&S combat, in RPGing, isn't necessarily just about degree of dangerousness. It might also be about how it plays out - eg as a player I might want to experience the flashing blades, pantherish dodges and straining thews.



Absolutely.

I would love a game where your swing details make important mechanical sense. 

Since this likely slows down combat you can afford to have fewer and smaller combats, to really put the emphasis on how close to death you really are. Maybe not transforming the experience from combat as sport to combat as war, but asking players to REALLY be discerning with the fights they pick.

However I haven't found any such games. 

Blades of the Iron Throne (I think it's called) was a total bust, when we realized there was not even a cursory attempt to make a balanced game out of it. Sure you had lots of details determining what happened when weapon A met body part B but there was no notion of offering equal choices. The _game_ was non-existent.

Honestly it came across as an masturbatory aid for a GM that just wants to narrate cool fights with consistency from one fight to the other.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 15, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I would love *a game where your swing details make important mechanical sense.
> 
> Since this likely slows down combat you can afford to have fewer and smaller combats,* to really put the emphasis on how close to death you really are. Maybe not transforming the experience from combat as sport to combat as war, but asking players to REALLY be discerning with the fights they pick.
> 
> However I haven't found any such games.



4e D&D:


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 15, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> 4e D&D:



Sorry tried it found it unplayable. Either the fight was of manageable size, and then it was trivial to win for the players, or the fight was actually challenging, and it would take all the available time with nothing left for story and roleplaying. 

I don't agree with those lazily saying 4E played like a boardgame. But for us the feeling really was of playing a boardgame, since combats needed to take many hours to be tactically interesting and challenging. It matters that 4E really invites you to play it like chess, really planning each move. (Playing it hard and fast never appealed to us given all the little bonuses and modifiers).

In the end it was really fun, except sessions consisted almost exclusively of looking at a board and methodically winning a combat. 

It didn't give us the balance between fighting, and talking, and fighting, and role-playing. Sure some fights in 3E or 5E take forever too (particularly at high level). 4E was doomed because EVERY fight had to be just about the only thing you did that session. Otherwise we got the feeling of a party of level 10 characters meeting three goblins. Playing out such a lopsided fight just isn't done, you simply narrate the death/capture/etc of the low-level foes and move on.

In other to have the familiar rhythm all fights would have had to be like that. Fights you don't want to waste time on because the outcome is a given.

So no Captain Reynolds, we gave it a serious try but had to drop it as basically incompatible with our D&D campaigns. Let's just say in hindsight I have never struggled to understand how the edition could fail.


----------



## Yora (Jul 15, 2021)

I think Sword & Sorcery demands a combat system that is faster and with simpler rules, not one that is slower and more meticulous. You want fast action with enemies being quickly swepts aside. The swinging of swords doesn't really add anything to the story, it rather interrupt the story. What you want instead is a system that is highly flexible by being rather abstract, so that you can represent all kinds of cool things players might want to do with a small set of very simple dice rolls. Don't get bogged down with counting squares and optimizing your conditional modifiers. When a player says he wants to throw an enemy over the railing and down a well, there's no time to pull out some book to look up an obscure rule for grabbing and throwing opponents. Push heavy barrels down the stairs, swing on chandeliers, push someone's face into the forge fire. It has to feel like chaotic action, not like a cricket game lasting the whole afternon.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 15, 2021)

Yora said:


> I think Sword & Sorcery demands a combat system that is faster and with simpler rules, not one that is slower and more meticulous. You want fast action with enemies being quickly swepts aside. The swinging of swords doesn't really add anything to the story, it rather interrupt the story. What you want instead is a system that is highly flexible by being rather abstract, so that you can represent all kinds of cool things players might want to do with a small set of very simple dice rolls. Don't get bogged down with counting squares and optimizing your conditional modifiers. When a player says he wants to throw an enemy over the railing and down a well, there's no time to pull out some book to look up an obscure rule for grabbing and throwing opponents. Push heavy barrels down the stairs, swing on chandeliers, push someone's face into the forge fire. It has to feel like chaotic action, not like a cricket game lasting the whole afternon.



Absolutely.

However, could I suggest a possible conflation between complex games and games focused on individual swings?

I completely agree S&S deserves non complex non cluttery games.

But the allure of Blades was to conclude each duel in just a few swings, since as soon as you connect it's game over. (When hit you don't just go "minus 26 hp", you fall to the ground screaming with your entrails falling out...)

Whatever it's faults it certainly wasn't a game like, say, Pathfinder 2, with loads of modifiers and conditionals.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 15, 2021)

Yora said:


> I think Sword & Sorcery demands a combat system that is faster and with simpler rules, not one that is slower and more meticulous. You want fast action with enemies being quickly swepts aside. The swinging of swords doesn't really add anything to the story, it rather interrupt the story. What you want instead is a system that is highly flexible by being rather abstract, so that you can represent all kinds of cool things players might want to do with a small set of very simple dice rolls. Don't get bogged down with counting squares and optimizing your conditional modifiers. When a player says he wants to throw an enemy over the railing and down a well, there's no time to pull out some book to look up an obscure rule for grabbing and throwing opponents. Push heavy barrels down the stairs, swing on chandeliers, push someone's face into the forge fire. It has to feel like chaotic action, not like a cricket game lasting the whole afternon.



This sounds more in the vein of Fate or Cortex Prime.


----------



## Yora (Jul 15, 2021)

For those looking to play a gang of Lankhmar rogues, I'd absolutely recommend Blades in the Dark.

I'm still surprised that there isn't a "generic" Sword & Sorcery PtbA game. Ot seems like a perfect fit.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 15, 2021)

Yora said:


> For those looking to play a gang of Lankhmar rogues, I'd absolutely recommend Blades in the Dark.
> 
> I'm still surprised that there isn't a "generic" Sword & Sorcery PtbA game. Ot seems like a perfect fit.



Freebooters of the Frontier and possibly Vagabonds of Dyfed.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 15, 2021)

Yora said:


> For those looking to play a gang of Lankhmar rogues, I'd absolutely recommend Blades in the Dark.
> 
> I'm still surprised that there isn't a "generic" Sword & Sorcery PtbA game. Ot seems like a perfect fit.



As well as what @Aldarc mentioned, there's @loverdrive's Swords Under the Sun.



CapnZapp said:


> I would love a game where your swing details make important mechanical sense.
> 
> Since this likely slows down combat you can afford to have fewer and smaller combats, to really put the emphasis on how close to death you really are. Maybe not transforming the experience from combat as sport to combat as war, but asking players to REALLY be discerning with the fights they pick.
> 
> However I haven't found any such games.



Burning Wheel. Depending on the detail that is desired, violence can be resolved as a straightforward check - intent and task - like any other; can be resolved as a single pair of opposed checks (attack and defence pools); or can be resolved via a system of detailed blind declarations, where the choice to attack, parry, feint etc matters quite a bit - there is some resemblance to RuneQuest or to The Riddle of Steel.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 16, 2021)

pemerton said:


> As well as what @Aldarc mentioned, there's @loverdrive's Swords Under the Sun.
> 
> Burning Wheel. Depending on the detail that is desired, violence can be resolved as a straightforward check - intent and task - like any other; can be resolved as a single pair of opposed checks (attack and defence pools); or can be resolved via a system of detailed blind declarations, where the choice to attack, parry, feint etc matters quite a bit - there is some resemblance to RuneQuest or to The Riddle of Steel.



RQ does indeed offer you the possibility to declare a stance which is more involved than D&D.

But I'm talking about games where every single swing is played out.

At least that's what I thought Blades would be (not the other Blades), but it turned out there was zero effort to balance the various swings, stabs, lunges, and cautious parries against each other. You could just select a high-performance option from the tables and repeat it. To me such a game needs a clever mechanism to balance a big swing with getting overextended afterwards (and so on and so on) but that was left in the hands of the players.

A good GM could use it but you could not just give it to the players - they'd minmax the bazoo out of it instantly.

There just was no game.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 16, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm talking about games where every single swing is played out.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me such a game needs a clever mechanism to balance a big swing with getting overextended afterwards (and so on and so on)



Burning Wheel (with its Fight! subsystem) satisfies these two desiderata. I think that TRoS does too, but it's harder to get a copy of!


----------



## Yora (Jul 16, 2021)

Last night I realized that any system for a Sword & Sorcery campaign needs a good mechanic for wrestling and such. Characters absolutely have to be able to kick people into pits or strangle them to death with their own bare hands.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 16, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Burning Wheel. Depending on the detail that is desired, violence can be resolved as a straightforward check - intent and task - like any other; can be resolved as a single pair of opposed checks (attack and defence pools); or can be resolved via a system of detailed blind declarations, where the choice to attack, parry, feint etc matters quite a bit - *there is some resemblance to RuneQuest* or to The Riddle of Steel.





CapnZapp said:


> RQ does indeed offer you the possibility to declare a stance which is more involved than D&D.
> 
> But I'm talking about games where every single swing is played out.
> 
> ...



Jackals: Bronze Age Fantasy Roleplaying (Osprey Games), which uses a modified version of OpenQuest, could also likely work. I believe that Dungeon Musings on YouTube has several videos of him running the game.


----------



## Numidius (Jul 16, 2021)

Pacts & Blades. Pbta derivative, I guess. I remember it has an interesting way of advancement, either in pacts or blades. 
I've heard some clunky mechanic to determine damage, though


----------



## Numidius (Jul 16, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I would love a game where your swing details make important mechanical sense.
> 
> ...




Mmhhh.... Important mechanical sense? I don't know... 

The times in which descriptions of slashes/gunfight/whatever made really the difference between winning or losing, were when going freeform adjudication by the gm (me). 

Runner up, Dungeon World, or similar game, because you need to know what actually happens in the fight to see if it triggers the rolls to hit and for damage. 

In any iteration of d&d I tried (not many) the focus in combat was to count every little bonus/malus to meet the target number, which is fun btw, only not exactly my ideal of flashy fights with something at stake beyond mere victory. 

In my current b/x d&d game I added some options to make actual descriptions more important: 
Fluid initiative
Just exchanging damage with opponent if one doesn't bother to defend herself (ala Into the Odd rpg)
Standard attack rolls
Maneuvers in combat with extra die ( ala DCC rpg)
Stances
Freeform adjudication of weapons usage to have a particular advantage, or complication. 

Where is this going? Since we have a Gm who can adjudicate, why not push her role to an extreme (freeform), while also fostering description by the Players...? 
That is going to be fast and detailed as needed, and if/when disagreement arise, well, roll something.


----------



## Numidius (Jul 16, 2021)

Bedrockgames said:


> My approach to this has always been a little old fashioned I think. I just read a conan story and get an adventure idea from it. To me, rather than coming up with a list of things that need to be present, I just immerse myself in that kind of material, and draw on it for adventure and situation ideas.



So much this. Don't overthink it. I would look at an Elric's graphic novel to get some inspiration, for example, as I posted in the other thread.


----------



## Yora (Jul 18, 2021)

So, the question everyone should have, but nobody seems to ask.
How do you make a S&S campaign spicy? S&S is not modest and composed. A big draw of the whole aesthetic is that it's naughty and getting a kick out of it. Chainmail bikinis and harlot tables are certainly not the way to go. But if not that, what is?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 18, 2021)

Yora said:


> How do you make a S&S campaign spicy?



Are you talking expressly about sex here?


----------



## Yora (Jul 18, 2021)

Not only, though it's certainly a major part. Sword & Sorcery tends to have a strong transgressive element, which contributes to its reputation of being trashy fantasy.
Saying "the PCs can be villains" is certainly true, but can that be more than regular juvenile murderhobos? What about PCs who aren't really bad? How can we make them break the rules and stick it to the man, and rebel against the restrictive norms of society?


----------



## pemerton (Jul 18, 2021)

Yora said:


> Not only, though it's certainly a major part. Sword & Sorcery tends to have a strong transgressive element, which contributes to its reputation of being trashy fantasy.
> Saying "the PCs can be villains" is certainly true, but can that be more than regular juvenile murderhobos? What about PCs who aren't really bad? How can we make them break the rules and stick it to the man, and rebel against the restrictive norms of society?



Who is the _we_ who is making them break the rules?

If you frame scenes in which transgression is an option; and you narrate consequences in a way that doesn't just hose the players for choosing transgression; then it will happen, or not, as the players think is appropriate for circumstances and their PCs.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 18, 2021)

Yora said:


> Not only, though it's certainly a major part. Sword & Sorcery tends to have a strong transgressive element, which contributes to its reputation of being trashy fantasy.
> Saying "the PCs can be villains" is certainly true, but can that be more than regular juvenile murderhobos? What about PCs who aren't really bad? How can we make them break the rules and stick it to the man, and rebel against the restrictive norms of society?



I don't think that its reputation is so much "transgressive“ as it is "juvenille," especially of the male power fantasy variety. Its reputation is more akin to Harlequin Romance Novels or, rather, "Harlequin Action Novels," but for boys.

I don't think it's a coincidence, FWIW, that the resurgent interest in S&S and hyper-masculine action heroes in the late '70s-'80s followed 2nd Wave Feminism.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 19, 2021)

Sigh. Discussing S&S as if it's an intellectual feat to find flaws in it.

I *like* my S&S trashy and visceral and indefensible. I find it infinitely more rewarding and interesting to highlight what is good and attractive about the genre than poking holes in it. Are we fans of S&S or are we not?

Let's instead hold up the beefcake and cheesecake as something _worthy_, as something useful in order to create the atmosphere and imagery that is S&S! 

If you don't care for inequality, and if you need equal opportunities for every concept of character - then just play in another genre. To me S&S is very much driven by testosterone, and trying to get rid of that is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Infinitely more constructive than easy sniping would be for y'all to tell us what aspects of S&S is it that you really *do* like!

Because if your list ends up containing lots of things S&S share with other fantasy genres, and perhaps very few of the things that are decidedly Swordy or Sorcerous, then I've got news for you: you're not really a fan of S&S, and you're mostly trying to make a round peg fit a square hole.

To me S&S most of all offers the promise of_ unpuritan_ role-playing. Only a puritan would confuse that for juvenile.

You play S&S when you need to cleanse your palate after too much of the Americanized fantasy that is D&D. A genre that is decidedly restricted and self-censored. If you can describe your S&S scenario on an American "family friendly" forum without getting censored or booted something is wrong! 

S&S needs to be the European arthouse movie you watch after watching too many Marvel superhero movies. Just look at the new(ish) Conan and John Carter movies to see what a dumpster fire of an idea it is to "clean up" S&S.

Have a nice day, everybody


----------



## pemerton (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I *like* my S&S trashy and visceral and indefensible
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I thought I was following your rant until I got to that last bit I've quoted. I don't know what arthouse movies you're watching, but if I had to point to something trashy and indefensible I'd be pointing to a MCU film rather than an Almodovar film!

My conception of S&S is dominated by REH's Conan and Kull stories. It's about violently capable individuals making their way in a world with little or no _inherent value_. It has a modernist or even existential dimension: value is imposed on a situation by the person who takes control of it; and obligations are personal and passionate, not impersonal or duty-imposed traditions.

To that extent there's a resemblance to some European films, but not because of trashiness or indefensibility!


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 19, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I thought I was following your rant until I got to that last bit I've quoted. I don't know what arthouse movies you're watching, but if I had to point to something trashy and indefensible I'd be pointing to a MCU film rather than an Almodovar film!



Lol - no complaints there! 

However, for many (too many if you ask me) MCU represents an acceptable standard allowable in polite company, while old Italian _giallo_ movies or maybe the recent Palme d'Or winner _Titane_, represents something literally unspeakable. Untouchable. Let's pretend it doesn't even exist. Approaching S&S from the pearl-clutching angle. (Double sigh)

I (obviously) haven't watched that particular movie (yet), but just from reading about it I am positive it represents what I was aiming for with my analogy. In other words, for me S&S includes - and worships - aspects your olde Forgotten Realmse never do. Even when written by and played by fully grown adults. Dismissing it as merely "juvenile" says more about the speaker than the source material.

Maybe I'm just reading from too many US pop-culture internet sites thou.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> If you don't care for inequality, and if you need equal opportunities for every concept of character - then just play in another genre. To me S&S is very much driven by testosterone, and trying to get rid of that is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.




Just to briefly key on this passage- if you are using the word testosterone to mean, well, a gestalt of action-oriented characters, I can understand that! On the other hand, if you are using it in the more specific definition, eh.

Look, I think that it would be a mistake to view the canonical characters in classic S&S as representing all that can be (Fafhrd, Grey Mouser, Conan, Elric)- simply because the vast majority of protagonists at the time were male. 

I think that the image of the iconic posterior-kicking female character is firmly with us at this point, and we can easily see how it works. The dearth is just because there aren't really modern takes (and unfortunately, the Red Sonja movie was made in the '80s, so ...).

Arguably, the most recent Mad Max is just a genre-bending S&S, and Charlize Theron always kicks major posterior. See also, Atomic Blonde.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 19, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Just to briefly key on this passage- if you are using the word testosterone to mean, well, a gestalt of action-oriented characters, I can understand that! On the other hand, if you are using it in the more specific definition, eh.



I'm having a discussion on the topic of how to distinguish S%S from other ttrpg genres, as well as making an effort of steering discussion away from "what's wrong with S&S" into "what's right about S&S". 

Does that help?


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 19, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> See also, Atomic Blonde.



If we're talking Theron movies I personally think The Old Guard is much more S&S than Atomic Blonde. 

You don't have to be male to act like you've gotten an overdose of testosterone. Yes, Mad Max is very S&S. But not all action is S&S. 

Furiosa is an iconic S&S character. A (wo)man of few words, very quick to "unthinking" action, complete with "helpless" brides to protect, covered in sweat and oil, on an exceedingly simple quest with a rather non-complex solution  

I won't hold against her that she is far cleverer than the supposed protagonist of the movie


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm having a discussion on the topic of how to distinguish S%S from other ttrpg genres, as well as making an effort of steering discussion away from "what's wrong with S&S" into "what's right about S&S".
> 
> Does that help?




Kind of! I'd just note that, being a particularly big fan of S&S myself with a whole lot of posts devoted to the topic, I often find it more helpful to concentrate on some of the elements that are enjoyable, rather than a product of their time.

Put another way, if you start with the premise that S&S is only about _unpuritan _roleplaying (your words), it might seem that you're alienating a potentially large playing base. 

I think S&S is for everyone!


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I'm having a discussion on the topic of how to distinguish S%S from other ttrpg genres, as well as making an effort of steering discussion away from "what's wrong with S&S" into "what's right about S&S".
> 
> Does that help?



I don't think that saying that the S&S genre's reputation is less "transgressive" and more "juvenille" is a matter of what's wrong/right about S&S as it is simply accurately assessing its wider cultural reception. S&S came out of the same pulp magazine stories that had the reputation for being "run-of-the-mill, low-quality literature." Of course many of the great authors and stories of science fiction and fantasy came out of these pulp magazines, but the broader cultural reputation for much of this pulp fiction was still regarded as fairly low brow entertainment since these were cheap magazines that were targeted towards young males. I don't think it's somehow puritanical to recognize the target audience for what it was or imagine that these stories were not somehow written, in part, with that target audience in mind. 

That said, I do agree with the idea of focusing on S&S's positives.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 19, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Kind of! I'd just note that, being a particularly big fan of S&S myself with a whole lot of posts devoted to the topic, I often find it more helpful to concentrate on some of the elements that are enjoyable, rather than a product of their time.
> 
> Put another way, if you start with the premise that S&S is only about _unpuritan _roleplaying (your words), it might seem that you're alienating a potentially large playing base.



Put yet another way, how about you share the elements you enjoy, instead of just going back to that old chestnut of theorizing how various people can get alienated.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I'm just taking an opportunity to illustrate the point I made earlier.

Respectfully,
Zapp


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Put yet another way, how about you share the elements you enjoy, instead of just going back to that old chestnut of theorizing how various people can get alienated.
> 
> I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I'm just taking an opportunity to illustrate the point I made earlier.
> 
> ...




In relation to my earlier posts:

1. S&S is gonzo. _The Swords of Lankhmar, Elric._

2. S&S is gritty- civilization is usually corrupting and decaying. There are few, if any, rising powers- they are in decline.

3. Magic is dangerous, evil, or both. And if you have to depend on magic, it will get you in the end (ahem, Blackrazor).

4. S&S's morality can be ambiguous. 

5. Cunning, wit, and strength carry the day.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 19, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> That said, I do agree with the idea of focusing on S&S's positives.



Thanks, but remember, my underlying impetus is to force us to confront the possibility it isn't S&S we really like.

Another way of saying this is that it can be easy to just crap all over what we don't like about S&S. But what is the alternative?

I have a hunch a lot of S&S' detractors can't define a genre that remains unmistakably S&S if they remove everything they profess to dislike.

But if they can't, isn't it better they realize it isn't S&S they like, and so go play in another genre?

Or at the very least admit to themselves they're not really into it for the constructive criticism. They just want to stop others from playing in a way _they_ perceive as badwrongfun. 

What I get frustrated by are people that simultaneously can't define the genre, can't explain what's left after everything bad has been cleaned out, yet give themselves permission to criticize what others like...

In short, no S&S probably can't be saved. Much better you move on and leave the wreck for us poor people that doesn't know better than to like objectively distasteful material...!

Saying I'm a S&S fan except... [insert pretty much everything that makes S&S recognizable and distinct here]... as if that's an useful take is what I see repeated over and over, and it is exhausting.

I offer a different take. Actually confessing S&S ---as it exists in the zeitgeist, not some theoretical ideal version--- has its allure seems to be an almost unique take around here... But *how else* did y'all become a fan of the genre!?!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> But *how else* did y'all become a fan of the genre!?!




Um ... reading all the books that created the genre? 

That's what got me. Well, that and playing OD&D and AD&D.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 19, 2021)

Some of the positives of S&S, in my experience, are:

Its short form: ideally, each adventure should be one session. This keeps the goals clear, and allows you to try a variety of scenarios, monsters and challenges without bogging down in a protracted campaign that could easily become stale or confusing, and that demand more effort from the DM and more attention from the players.

Its lack of moral philosophising: anyone who stands in the PCs' way is fair game - and is probably evil anyway. Along with clear goals, this means that the road towards achieving those goals is also uncomplicated.

Its cinematic quality: the villains are over-the-top, and accordingly the PCs are meant to be action heroes. The DM should encourage them to act swiftly and do cool stuff. Attacking first in combat should mean killing one or two mooks there and then. Sneaking around should take the PCs past secret meetings, strange sacrifices or at the very least startling a damsel (M/F) who could scream and give them away.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 19, 2021)

One of the biggest positives, at least for me, is it is probably the most gameable genre for me next to gangster genres or horror. I find anytime I read classic Conan or anything in that vein, but Conan in particular, I get adventure ideas very quickly. And the way that it inspires me isn't "I want to repeat what's on the page" or "I want to base an adventure on this" it is more like it jumps starts my thinking and the kernels in the story become fodder for making something larger that works in a fantasy RPG. 

Also another positive is a lot of sword and sorcery isn't just in movies, it is in music too. There is a lot of S&S inspired heavy metal. Often I have the same kind of experience listening to something like a Dio song as I do reading Howard (though Dio isn't just S&S


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> In short, no S&S probably can't be saved. Much better you move on and leave the wreck for us poor people that doesn't know better than to like objectively distasteful material...!



S&S is experiencing a resurgence. Maybe not on a large scale, but there are quite a few authors out there writing modern S&S. Try some anthologies such as _Swords & Dark Magic_ (mentioned above), _The Book of Swords _and _The Book of Magic _(both edited by Gardner Dozois), and _Rogues _(edited by Dozois and GRRM) some of the stories in Shawn Speakman's _Unfettered _and _Unbound _anthologies. For longer works, there are the Witcher novels, novellas and graphic novels, Douglas Hulick's _Tales of the Kin_, and even _The Throne of the Crescent Moon _by Saladin Ahmed.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Thanks, but remember, my underlying impetus is to force us to confront the possibility it isn't S&S we really like.
> 
> Another way of saying this is that it can be easy to just crap all over what we don't like about S&S. But what is the alternative?
> 
> ...



I think that your pontification here is misplaced as it seems to fall into the fallacious trap of equating "criticsm" with "dislike" and "critical fans" with "detractors" and/or "haters."


----------



## Yora (Jul 19, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> S&S is experiencing a resurgence. Maybe not on a large scale, but there are quite a few authors out there writing modern S&S. Try some anthologies such as _Swords & Dark Magic_ (mentioned above), _The Book of Swords _and _The Book of Magic _(both edited by Gardner Dozois), and _Rogues _(edited by Dozois and GRRM) some of the stories in Shawn Speakman's _Unfettered _and _Unbound _anthologies. For longer works, there are the Witcher novels, novellas and graphic novels, Douglas Hulick's _Tales of the Kin_, and even _The Throne of the Crescent Moon _by Saladin Ahmed.



I'd also argue that Conan is having a pretty decent boom again, lately. Got another rules system released recently, and a survival online-game that seems to be quite well regarded.


----------



## ART! (Jul 19, 2021)

Yora said:


> I'd also argue that Conan is having a pretty decent boom again, lately. Got another rules system released recently, and a survival online-game that seems to be quite well regarded.



And he's part of the Marvel Comics universe again, including being part of _Savage Avengers_.


----------



## Yora (Jul 19, 2021)

Sword & Sorcery is fun because it's sincere. It's a style of adventure fiction that is done with apologizing for anything and defending itself against detractors. When people create works as Sword & Sorcery, they don't care if it may be seen as dorky, juvenile, unrefined, or sloppy. Even at it's dumbest and cheapest, I never got an impression that the creators don't believe that this is really the coolest and funniest naughty word.
The appeal of Sword & Sorcery is in having fun with stuff you're not supposed to, because it is considered improper.

You want beefcakes strangling giant gorillas with their bare hands? Do it!
Evil sorcerers with huge pointy collars on their capes and goatees? Do it!
Tiddies? Do it!
Fighting dragons on the spire of a burning castle during a thunderstorm? Do it!

Sword & Sorcery refuses to participate in the circus of trying to get accepted by critics and popular with the masses. If only a small group of people enjoy this stuff, then so be it. Make awesome fun stuff for those people, instead of making something for the masses that you no longer enjoy yourself.
Like punk and aspects of queer culture, Sword & Sorcery is crass and vulgar, because it's done with pleasing others and celebrating what it considers fun.

One of the most striking things about Sword & Sorcery to me is that it's radically egalitarian. The societies in which the characters live tend to be particularly cruel and oppressive compared to other fantasy worlds, but that's for providing a backdrop that highlights their acts of defiance to comply. A Sword & Sorcery hero can be anyone and anything, come from any background, and be of any appearance. Because just by virtue of being a protagonist in this kind of stories in this kind of worlds, their very existence is considered offensive to society.
Maybe they could change to fit in, but because they have power, they don't have to. And they chose to let the unfair world come at them rather than submit to it. Haters gonna hate. And if they don't get out of the hero's face, someone's gonna get slapped stabbed!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 19, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I think that your pontification here is misplaced as it seems to fall into the fallacious trap of equating "criticsm" with "dislike" and "critical fans" with "detractors" and/or "haters."




To make an analogy:

A person likes cosmic horror. Cosmic horror is often defined in relation to HP Lovecraft.

One thing about HP Lovecraft is that not only was he racist, but that is pretty evident in _some _of his writings (Horror at Red Hook). 

That said, the racism (and the transgressions of the racism) isn't what defines cosmic horror, or Lovecraftian horror. It's possible to discuss and enjoy something not _because _of the ways it has aged poorly, but _in spite_ of the ways in which it has aged poorly. 

I know CapnZapp didn't mean it in that way, which is why I was prodding him a little. The distilled awesomeness of the best S&S stories remain, despite aspects not being fully modern; something we should expect from stories written some time ago.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 19, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I offer a different take. Actually confessing S&S ---as it exists in the zeitgeist, not some theoretical ideal version--- has its allure seems to be an almost unique take around here... But *how else* did y'all become a fan of the genre!?!



I don't think sex is essential to S&S. Again using REH as my reference point, it's there in some of the stories, but not others.

Tower of the Elephant, The God in the Bowl, The Phoenix on the Sword The Scarlet Citadel - classic stories in which sex doesn't really figure.

The People of the Black Circle - a classic story in which sex does figure.

Queen of the Black Coast - a classic story, sex drives it, but I have some trouble getting past the racism.

Xuthal of the Dark - a bit more by-the-numbers and sex is fairly central.

Vale of Lost Women - a pretty terrible story and as well as gratuitous sex there's gratuitous racism also.

When it comes to S&S RPGing, I think there's plenty to pick up on and emulate and be inspired by in that first bundle of stories without being obliged to include the "the ancient mysteries, and the exotic ways of pleasure" found in Xuthal of the Dark!

Conversely, for the incorporation of sex and sexuality into S&S RPGing, I would suggest VIncent Baker's In A Wicked Age as one way to do it, because it mediates the introduction of the material via an external process (ie drawing playing cards to read the game's "oracles" (ie lists of plot elements) that then suggest protagonists, antagonists and relationships) rather than just inviting the participants to spontaneously give voice to the more lurid end of their sexual imagination!


----------



## Yora (Jul 20, 2021)

How come it's always only Sword & Sorcery that is asked to justify itself?

I never see any such objections against Grimdark. Grimdark is always allowed to pass with "It's not really my kind of fantasy". Even Game of Thrones is worse than all Sword & Sorcery I've ever seen, and that one's everyone's darling. (Until they lost the plot in the last third.)


----------



## reelo (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Put another way, if you start with the premise that S&S is only about _unpuritan _roleplaying (your words), it might seem that you're alienating a potentially large playing base.




Offense is taken, not given!
Death Metal music isn't "for everyone" either, but the people from that scene are some of the most fun, caring, and loving people I've met in my life.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2021)

Yora said:


> *How come it's always only Sword & Sorcery that is asked to justify itself?*
> 
> I never see any such objections against Grimdark. Grimdark is always allowed to pass with "It's not really my kind of fantasy". Even Game of Thrones is worse than all Sword & Sorcery I've ever seen, and that one's everyone's darling. (Until they lost the plot in the last third.)



Is it? I'm not sure if that's the case. In many regards, S&S adventure fantasy forms the norm or backbone of our hobby, even if D&D has increasingly emphasized more heroic high fantasy.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2021)

reelo said:


> Offense is taken, not given!




I've heard people say that recently (is that a thing?), and I think it's really stupid. No offense. 

That's like saying comedy is taken, not given. Or compliments are taken, not given. Why bother saying anything at all if it's all meaningless, only depending on what the listener hears?

Really, though, it removes agency and intentionality from the speaker/artist. There are times when I _want _to offend. The ability to provoke, offend, and shock lies at core of artistic speech. 



reelo said:


> Death Metal music isn't "for everyone" either, but the people from that scene are some of the most fun, caring, and loving people I've met in my life.




Certainly true! But "death metal" is a sub-genre of "metal" and in turn has spawned numerous sub-genres. Moreover, it is not necessary that every single death metal band be, for example, Cannibal Corpse. Or, for that matter, burn down churches. 

Which moves back to the point of the thread- going to my Lovecraft analogy, I really enjoy cosmic horror, and I grew up reading Lovecraft. But the _point_ of Lovecraft, the _defining characteristic_ of the cosmic horror genre, isn't the racism! 

When I think of S&S, I don't think of it as being _transgressive. T_hen again, I have a high bar for what constitutes transgressive- Conan and Fafhrd are not exactly Mapplethorpe in the '80s, or Burroughs in the '50s- instead, they reified the traditional societal roles of the time. Ahem.

Instead, I view them as being modern- as acting very much in a way that is contrary to the 'small-c' conservative Tolkien-esque (Alexender, Lewis) "high fantasy" that was so .... boring. 

I love S&S because, unlike high fantasy, it doesn't suck.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I love S&S because, unlike high fantasy, it doesn't suck.



I'm offended!


----------



## pemerton (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> When I think of S&S, I don't think of it as being _transgressive. T_hen again, I have a high bar for what constitutes transgressive- Conan and Fafhrd are not exactly Mapplethorpe in the '80s, or Burroughs in the '50s- instead, they reified the traditional societal roles of the time. Ahem.



I tried to address this is in my post not far upthread, but no one seemed to pick up on it. Isn't _transgressive_ being used to mean _contains sex and nudity_? That's the most obvious way I can make sense of the comparison to European arthouse films.

Which also explains the worry that it might be seen as juvenile, I think!


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 20, 2021)

I recently reread the collected Conan stories over the course of a few months, and what stuck out to me was the complete lack of any irony. Howard _really digs_ his macho, wily protagonist, he _really likes_ forgotten cities and decadent civilizations and evil snakes and wizards, and he doesn't feel the need to be arch or distanced the way, say, writers as early as Leiber occasionally do and modern writers, particularly of literary fiction, do quite often. Memes often include a series of spoofs of jokes about obscure references, but Conan--nah, he's just a dude in great shape with a sword. (Even Elric was supposed to be the anti-Conan.) He lives, he burns with life, he loves, he slays, and that is enough. I wonder if that's some of the appeal?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I tried to address this is in my post not far upthread, but no one seemed to pick up on it. Isn't _transgressive_ being used to mean _contains sex and nudity_? That's the most obvious way I can make sense of the comparison to European arthouse films.
> 
> Which also explains the worry that it might be seen as juvenile, I think!




I think that it also explains the references to cheesecake and beefcake, which isn't ... you know, the actual _genre text _for all aspects of the genre. 

Again, dancing around the issue, but yes. 

Personally, I think sex and nudity in S&S is fine, but is also not a defining element to the genre.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 20, 2021)

I think part of the reason for the cheesecake and beefcake is that the societies commonly associated with S&S are decadent, and frequently bring to mind the orgies of the late Roman Empire, or popular conceptions/misconceptions of palaces and harems in the Tales of the Arabian Nights.

More modern S&S doesn't shy away from cheesy nudity, but definitely doesn't require it.

(It's also worth noting that Conan himself dressed appropriately for most occasions: chainmail instead of a loincloth, for example. Jirrel of Joiry, as I recall, also dressed sensibly and wore armour.)


----------



## reelo (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I've heard people say that recently (is that a thing?), and I think it's really stupid. No offense.
> 
> That's like saying comedy is taken, not given. Or compliments are taken, not given. Why bother saying anything at all if it's all meaningless, only depending on what the listener hears?
> 
> Really, though, it removes agency and intentionality from the speaker/artist. There are times when I _want _to offend. The ability to provoke, offend, and shock lies at core of artistic speech.




Offense is special in that regard, in that some people take offense in things that are not intended to give it. But if we demand to sanitize everything to a point where nobody could _possibly_ take offense at it, everything just becomes a hollow shell. Nobody has a "right to not be offended", as a famous philosopher once put it.

This doesn't exclude an artist's possible _intention_ to offend, but I think in the case of S&S, that intention is not necessarily clear.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I tried to address this is in my post not far upthread, but no one seemed to pick up on it. Isn't _transgressive_ being used to mean _contains sex and nudity_? That's the most obvious way I can make sense of the comparison to European arthouse films.
> 
> Which also explains the worry that it might be seen as juvenile, I think!



It's not as if people think of European arthouse films as juvenille just because they may contain sex and nudity. The juvenille reputation of Sword & Sorcery is likelier a by-product of the pulp medium and its target audience. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think that it also explains the references to cheesecake and beefcake, which isn't ... you know, the actual _genre text _for all aspects of the genre.
> 
> Again, dancing around the issue, but yes.
> 
> Personally, I think sex and nudity in S&S is fine, but is also not a defining element to the genre.



I think it's more characteristic of pulp magazines like Weird Tales, but these magazines were not publishing S&S stories exclusively or even mostly. 

As you say, sex and nudity in S&S is fine; however, I would add that I would like to see it expanded beyond the straight white male gaze. Diversify these elements in S&S. Make it racially, sexually, and gender diverse!


----------



## Yora (Jul 20, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I recently reread the collected Conan stories over the course of a few months, and what stuck out to me was the complete lack of any irony. Howard _really digs_ his macho, wily protagonist, he _really likes_ forgotten cities and decadent civilizations and evil snakes and wizards, and he doesn't feel the need to be arch or distanced the way, say, writers as early as Leiber occasionally do and modern writers, particularly of literary fiction, do quite often. Memes often include a series of spoofs of jokes about obscure references, but Conan--nah, he's just a dude in great shape with a sword. (Even Elric was supposed to be the anti-Conan.) He lives, he burns with life, he loves, he slays, and that is enough. I wonder if that's some of the appeal?



Yes, exactly. You get the same with Karl Wagner's Kane. And I even see it in Moorcock's Elric. These stories don't approve of everything the protagonists do, but they are absolutely sincere that these are supposed to be serious stories with meaningful messages. Which is notable when you see vast numbers of mainstream creators constantly trying to cover their backs and making sure nobody can accuse them of actually meaning what their stories might imply. That's the "irony is killing our culture" thing.

I think possible the biggest cause for Sword & Sorcery's reputation as being trashy is all the genuinely trashy S&S shlock that tried to cash in on the Conan movie in the 80s. If I recall correctly, Conan never actually wears the bearskin diaper from the posters in the movie outside of a one minute montage of his years as a gladiator slave. But it still became the iconic look for Sword & Sorcery protagonists ever since.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2021)

reelo said:


> Offense is special in that regard, in that some people take offense in things that are not intended to give it. But if we demand to sanitize everything to a point where nobody could _possibly_ take offense at it, everything just becomes a hollow shell. Nobody has a "right to not be offended", as a famous philosopher once put it.
> 
> This doesn't exclude an artist's possible _intention_ to offend, but I think in the case of S&S, that intention is not necessarily clear.




No.

Offense is not "special" in that regard. 

Someone falls over and you laugh. Did they mean to fall over (pratfall) or not? Was _The Room_ an intentional comedy? 

How someone reacts, and what is intended, are not always the same. Offense is not _special_ in this aspect. Elevating it denigrates the speaker and the audience.


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 20, 2021)

Yora said:


> Yes, exactly. You get the same with Karl Wagner's Kane. And I even see it in Moorcock's Elric. These stories don't approve of everything the protagonists do, but they are absolutely sincere that these are supposed to be serious stories with meaningful messages. Which is notable when you see vast numbers of mainstream creators constantly trying to cover their backs and making sure nobody can accuse them of actually meaning what their stories might imply. That's the "irony is killing our culture" thing.
> 
> I think possible the biggest cause for Sword & Sorcery's reputation as being trashy is all the genuinely trashy S&S shlock that tried to cash in on the Conan movie in the 80s. If I recall correctly, Conan never actually wears the bearskin diaper from the posters in the movie outside of a one minute montage of his years as a gladiator slave. But it still became the iconic look for Sword & Sorcery protagonists ever since.




I don't want to get into the is-itart debate as most people here are fans of genres (TTRPGs at the least and likely some variety of fantasy as well) that are not considered art by, say, the _New Yorker_ or Harvard--you won't see the 1e cover of the PHB at the Met. (I think there's more artistry in a tricked-out lowrider than a Pollock canvas, but that's just me.)

But I do think Sword & Sorcery _vis-a-vis, _say, Lord of the Rings is considered 'trashy' (and this is *my opinion and mine alone*) because it was historically enjoyed by the blue-collar consumers of the pulps and, now, is seen as too much of a right-leaning genre. (Ironically Howard, despite his racial views, was actually something of a feminist for his time and most of the sex in his stories was requested by the publishers.) Of course, you can definitely write a game about swordslinging queer people of any ethnic background (_Thirsty Sword Lesbians_ anyone?), but I think that's a big part of it.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> But I do think Sword & Sorcery _vis-a-vis, _say, Lord of the Rings is considered 'trashy' (and this is *my opinion and mine alone*) because it was historically enjoyed by the blue-collar consumers of the pulps and, now, is seen as too much of a right-leaning genre. (Ironically Howard, despite his racial views, was actually something of a feminist for his time and most of the sex in his stories was requested by the publishers.) Of course, you can definitely write a game about swordslinging queer people of any ethnic background (_Thirsty Sword Lesbians_ anyone?), but I think that's a big part of it.




Ugh. This kills me.

Seriously. I mean, think of the big "classic" names of high fantasy. Tolkien. Alexander. Lewis. All small-c (sometimes large-C) conservative. 

As I wrote before, high fantasy tropes are so tired. "Oh look, the dude is really a prince. His magic blood and destiny will save us!" Or the ever-popular, "The world as it was is totally awesome, we need to defend it from ... THE OTHER. Oh noes, those dark and swarthy forces that are totally not an allegory for industrialization are totally going to change our idyllic way of pastoral life."

C'mon. As I wrote before, the main difference between S&S and high fantasy is that S&S doesn't suck. S&S might not always be perfect, but I'm certainly not going to take any gruff about trashiness from a bunch of elf-lovers.


----------



## Yora (Jul 20, 2021)

As the quote goes "It is. And I'm tired of pretending it's not."


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2021)

By the way, for those interested in fun alternative takes on Sword & Sorcery, I highly recommend Paleomythic: A Roleplaying Game of Stone and Sorcery.


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Ugh. This kills me.
> 
> Seriously. I mean, think of the big "classic" names of high fantasy. Tolkien. Alexander. Lewis. All small-c (sometimes large-C) conservative.
> 
> ...




Eh, I'm more for S&S than high fantasy now, but I was introduced to the genre by my mom reading me LOTR as a kid and I appreciate Tolkien's artistry, worldbuilding, and more-or-less-singlehanded invention of a genre. 

I never got into Mercedes Lackey-style romantic fantasy, but I was happy when _Blue Rose_ came out because now more people had a game they could enjoy playing. 

There are lots of cuisines I don't like because they concentrate a lot on spicy food, but I'd never dream of saying they were bad as a result...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Jul 20, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> Eh, I'm more for S&S than high fantasy now, but I was introduced to the genre by my mom reading me LOTR as a kid and I appreciate Tolkien's artistry, worldbuilding, and more-or-less-singlehanded invention of a genre.
> 
> I never got into Mercedes Lackey-style romantic fantasy, but I was happy when _Blue Rose_ came out because now more people had a game they could enjoy playing.
> 
> There are lots of cuisines I don't like because they concentrate a lot on spicy food, but I'd never dream of saying they were bad as a result...




I think you may have mistaken the gist of my comment.

Tolkien is ... _fine. _The legion of Tolkien imitators that lacked his erudition, facility with languages, and attention to detail when it came to worldbuilding? Meh.

But the real issue is that people mistake an original publication in a pulp magazine (or a pulp genre) as being "trashy." This is the same mistake that is made over and over again throughout history (see, e.g., Hitchcock). What, do we need a Cahiers du Cinema to anoint Lieber as being a decent writer? 

S&S, whether it's REH or Lieber or Moocock or any of a number of other variants ... is certainly (IMO) much more interesting, dynamic, and artistic than the stodgy and moribund tropes of high fantasy. There is a reason that it is called "modern." Perhaps it is not modernist (as in Joyce and Eliot) but the sensibility belongs more to a Chandler or an Ellroy than to some non-existent halcyon days of the divine right of kings as exemplified by the protagonists of high fantasy.

In other words- I do not much appreciate the hypocrisy of those who might call out S&S - a genre marked by the individual struggling against corruption, when they would defend the retrograde and unexamined notions inherent in almost all high fantasy.

Or, as I put it more simply- I prefer S&S to high fantasy because S&S doesn't suck.


----------



## reelo (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> No.
> 
> Offense is not "special" in that regard.
> 
> ...



I might have put that wrong, I agree.

But I stand by my statement that "making sure nobody can possibly ever be offended by anything" is not a desireable thing. People who want to will go to great lengths in order to find something to be offended about, even the most trivial things.


----------



## reelo (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> In other words- I do not much appreciate the hypocrisy of those who might call out S&S - a genre marked by the individual struggling against corruption, when they would defend the retrograde and unexamined notions inherent in almost all high fantasy.
> 
> Or, as I put it more simply- I prefer S&S to high fantasy because S&S doesn't suck.




What I like about S&S is that it holds a mirror to modern societies: Civilization inevitably leads to debauchery and degeneration, "savage people" are depicted as much more morally clear-cut: Conan might be a savage barbarian, a pirate, a thief, and a warlord, but he's honest. It's the "civilized" antagonists that are liars, schemers, demonologists, slavers, and morally corrupt.


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 20, 2021)

IMHO only, but I suspect a lot of us are coming up with excuses for our adolescent (usually but not necessarily male) power fantasy.  

Hey, I think there's nothing wrong with saying, "Look, sometimes I like to fantasize about being an amoral cutthroat, and I'm cool with that. I'm not going to knock over a grocery store or run a meth lab any more than some guy who likes gangster movies or _Breaking Bad_ is."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 20, 2021)




----------



## Aldarc (Jul 20, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Tolkien is ... _fine. _The legion of Tolkien imitators that lacked his erudition, facility with languages, and attention to detail when it came to worldbuilding? Meh.



I like Tolkien's elves or at least the Noldor; however, (1) I think that a lot of his imitators failed to see that the elves of the 3rd Age were flawed elves who had been humbled by the repeated failures borne from their hubris. A large part of that admittedly comes from the Silmarillion. And (2) despite Tolkien's massive love for his elves, it's pretty clear that he had a higher opinion about humans in his work. So we mostly get the shallow imitations of Tolkien's elves that exist for the sake of having elves and only rarely do we get more interesting takes like Moorcock's Melniboneans or Eberron's death elves.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> But the real issue is that people mistake an original publication in a pulp magazine (or a pulp genre) as being "trashy." This is the same mistake that is made over and over again throughout history (see, e.g., Hitchcock). What, do we need a Cahiers du Cinema to anoint Lieber as being a decent writer?



I agree, but sometimes people don't realize how many fairly famous and now well-regarded novels actually came out of pulp or serialized publications rather than fully-hatched as a complete novel. I would almost compare it with the number of big name Hollywood directors that got their start working on B movies or with Roger Corman.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> S&S, whether it's REH or Lieber or Moocock or any of a number of other variants ... is certainly (IMO) much more interesting, dynamic, and artistic than the stodgy and moribund tropes of high fantasy. There is a reason that it is called "modern." Perhaps it is not modernist (as in Joyce and Eliot) but the sensibility belongs more to a Chandler or an Ellroy than to some non-existent halcyon days of the divine right of kings as exemplified by the protagonists of high fantasy.
> 
> In other words- I do not much appreciate the hypocrisy of those who might call out S&S - a genre marked by the individual struggling against corruption, when they would defend the retrograde and unexamined notions inherent in almost all high fantasy.
> 
> Or, as I put it more simply- I prefer S&S to high fantasy because S&S doesn't suck.



One of the things that I love about S&S - about Weird Tales and the like - is the weirdness of it. These are stories that often lack polish or some grand carefully-crafted world-building. A bunch of S&S authors seemed to throw around a lot of weird stuff into their worlds. It didn't care about this imaginary divide between fantasy vs. science fiction. Here are robots and Cthulhoid monsters side-by-side in this fantasy story with wizards. I loved that weird '80s science fantasy as a kid (e.g., He-Man, Thundarr, Visionaries, Thundercats, Star Wars, Heavy Metal, etc.) and a lot of that was heavily S&S and pulp inspired. I think that's the appeal of S&S vs. the epic fantasy. It's the weird vs. the pristine.


----------



## Yora (Jul 20, 2021)

In many types of fantasy, you can often have villains who are rude and insulting in their prejudices and bigotry, but there's little the heroes can do about it because their noble station and social connections make them untouchable. That's the fun part about Sword & Sorcery. You can just walk up to the prince, cut off his head and throw it at the king, and then jump into the moat after setting the curtains on fire. And nobody will say "You naughty word just destroyed the entire campaign!" No, it's glorious and heroic.


Aldarc said:


> I agree, but sometimes people don't realize how many fairly famous and now well-regarded novels actually came out of pulp or serialized publications rather than fully-hatched as a complete novel. I would almost compare it with the number of big name Hollywood directors that got their start working on B movies or with Roger Corman.



I'm immediately thinking of John Carpenter and (early) Riddley Scott.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 20, 2021)

pemerton said:


> My conception of S&S is dominated by REH's Conan and Kull stories. It's about violently capable individuals making their way in a world with little or no _inherent value_. It has a modernist or even existential dimension: value is imposed on a situation by the person who takes control of it; and obligations are personal and passionate, not impersonal or duty-imposed traditions.



That sounds very similar to most Westerns.

EDIT: The Conan story _Beyond the Black River_ is very much a Western with a frontier and Picts as stand-ins for Native Americans. I think I remember reading that towards the end of his life Howard was growing tired of sword & sorcery and wanted to transition more to Westerns.

There's also a lot of similarity with the post-apocalyptic. Upthread @Snarf Zagyg described _Mad Max Fury Road_ as S&S. I'd consider all the later Mad Max movies to be essentially Westerns.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 20, 2021)

pemerton said:


> @Snarf Zagyg's suggestion that D&D "turned" with DL is undercut, to a degree, by the earlier introduction of paladins. I think in S&S-oriented D&D they really have to go. Likewise clerics in the traditional sense. Likewise, I would say, druids and rangers - because these imply the possibility of a type of holistic integration of humanity and nature which I think conflicts with the "existentialist" (if that's not going too far) strand in S&S.



You might find these posts I wrote around a month ago interesting. They're about anti-existentialist passages in the AD&D 1e DMG compared to the existentialism in the early Elric stories. One weakness is that I don't have a very good grasp of what existentialism means, but other than that I think they're pretty good. They agree with your point that Gygaxian D&D is not very S&S-y.

Anti-existentialism in the AD&D 1e DMG 
Existentialism in While the Gods Laugh
Existentialism in Stormbringer


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 20, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> You might find these posts I wrote around a month ago interesting. They're about anti-existentialist passages in the AD&D 1e DMG compared to the existentialism in the early Elric stories. One weakness is that I don't have a very good grasp of what existentialism means, but other than that I think they're pretty good. They agree with your point that Gygaxian D&D is not very S&S-y.
> 
> Anti-existentialism in the AD&D 1e DMG
> Existentialism in While the Gods Laugh
> Existentialism in Stormbringer




If you're going there, the 1e DMG actually had an ethical foundation for evil alignments that was more or less Social Darwinism--survival of the fittest. I had never seen anyone try to come up with an ethical basis for being evil before--evil characters were just assumed to be selfish. The description of lawful evil in particular ("order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last") sounds quite fascist, whereas chaotic evil is closer to Max Stirner or the European illegalists ("other individuals and freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit").


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 21, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> If you're going there, the 1e DMG actually had an ethical foundation for evil alignments that was more or less Social Darwinism--survival of the fittest. I had never seen anyone try to come up with an ethical basis for being evil before--evil characters were just assumed to be selfish. The description of lawful evil in particular ("order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last") sounds quite fascist.



You're right. In the AD&D 1e DMG, Neutral Evil is Social Darwinism:

This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything.​
I don't think a real life Social Darwinist would consider their views to be evil in the cosmic sense, though they would likely agree that their views are at odds with conventional morality (which they would consider to not be truly moral). By labelling Social Darwinism evil, AD&D says that the Social Darwinist is wrong. There are similarities but I don't think Social Darwinism is quite the same as existentialism, as Social Darwinism puts more emphasis on the good of society, and often seems to be connected with group conflicts.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> It's not as if people think of European arthouse films as juvenille just because they may contain sex and nudity. The juvenille reputation of Sword & Sorcery is likelier a by-product of the pulp medium and its target audience.



Also a fair bit of the sex and nudity seems to be intended for immediate gratification - eg the "ancient mysteries, and the exotic ways of pleasure" of Xuthal of the Dark! To elaborate, I think the reader (who is expected to be a heterosexual man) is expected to pretty straightforwardly imagine himself as Conan, in a position to enjoy those exotic ways!

I think this also goes to @Blue Orange's remarks about the lack of irony. We could say more generally that REH's Conan isn't a character whose subtleties the reader is expected to engage with. He's a vehicle for the telling of the story, and for self-projection into the story where desired. Patrice Louinet talks a bit about this in relation to REH's own personality in his essay in the first volume of his three-volume collection of REH (The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 21, 2021)

Yora said:


> Tiddies? Do it!...
> 
> Sword & Sorcery refuses to participate in the circus of trying to get accepted by critics and popular with the masses.



I'm struggling to get my head around the idea that gratuitous female nudity isn't popular with the masses. Here in the UK our most popular newspaper, _The Sun_, featured topless women on page 3 until 2015.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> You might find these posts I wrote around a month ago interesting. They're about anti-existentialist passages in the AD&D 1e DMG compared to the existentialism in the early Elric stories. One weakness is that I don't have a very good grasp of what existentialism means



Thanks, I'll have a read. I don't know Elric super-well but do have a reasonable grasp of existentialism, and so between the two of us we probably have the right skill-set!



Doug McCrae said:


> That sounds very similar to most Westerns.
> 
> EDIT: The Conan story _Beyond the Black River_ is very much a Western with a frontier and Picts as stand-ins for Native Americans. I think I remember reading that towards the end of his life Howard was growing tired of sword & sorcery and wanted to transition more to Westerns.
> 
> There's also a lot of similarity with the post-apocalyptic. Upthread @Snarf Zagyg described _Mad Max Fury Road_ as S&S. I'd consider all the later Mad Max movies to be essentially Westerns.



I think there are similarities to Westerns, but also contrasts.

I agree that Beyond the Black River is a Western. It's probably also my least-favourite REH Conan story (which I know puts me at odds with the critics). But compare Beyond the Black River to The Tower of the Elephant or the opening sequence of Queen of the Black Coast - instead of Conan as a _critic_ of "civilisation", he is a champion of it, helping the colonists spread it. The thematic orientation is completely reversed.

If REH wanted to write a story in defence of colonialism, it would have made more sense to have the "vibrant, energetic" colonists taking over Stygia or some "ancient" and "decadent" land. (That said, from memory the Beyond the Black River Picts do use snakes in their magic, like Stygians. But they are not a "decadent" peoples.)


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I'm struggling to get my head around the idea that gratuitous female nudity isn't popular with the masses. Here in the UK our most popular newspaper, _The Sun_, featured topless women on page 3 until 2015.



I didn't know The Sun had reversed its publication policy in that respect.

And I agree. This is why I'm having to work to make sense of these references to "transgressive" and "offence" - because it seems as if we're trying to equate lad's mags to the avant garde.


----------



## Blue Orange (Jul 21, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I didn't know The Sun had reversed its publication policy in that respect.
> 
> And I agree. This is why I'm having to work to make sense of these references to "transgressive" and "offence" - because it seems as if we're trying to equate lad's mags to the avant garde.




It was transgressive in 1935. 1985 in some parts of this country.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 21, 2021)

Doug McCrae said:


> I'm struggling to get my head around the idea that gratuitous female nudity isn't popular with the masses. Here in the UK our most popular newspaper, _The Sun_, featured topless women on page 3 until 2015.



I think you are aware it is utterly unthinkable in the current predominantly American media culture. The RPGs we discuss on this and other major forums are so thoroughly sanitized it's as if Disney was the state religion...


----------



## Yora (Jul 21, 2021)

Of course it's popular. But you're _not supposed to_. It immediately disqualifies a work from most segments of mainstream media and public appreciation.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 21, 2021)

Yora said:


> Of course it's popular. But you're _not supposed to_. It immediately disqualifies a work from most segments of mainstream media and public appreciation.



If you mean appreciation in public (as in the media discourse), that is so.

It's just that your phrase can be read as arguing the public doesn't appreciate nudity, which is the exact opposite of the point made earlier.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 21, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I think you are aware it is utterly unthinkable in the current predominantly American media culture. The RPGs we discuss on this and other major forums are so thoroughly sanitized it's as if Disney was the state religion...



It's almost as if it's a corporate product created for the widest market of consumers possible.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 21, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> It's almost as if it's a corporate product created for the widest market of consumers possible.



It's almost as if you are okay with every rpg product being targeted towards the widest market even at the cost of becoming the blandest.

But no, your explanation does not hold water. Just because corporate interests are involved does not explain the extreme alignment of our hobby's products.

Pick literally any other market and it is trivial to pick out products that don't care someone just might get offended.

Ttrpgs are in an extremely eager-to-please phase where sanding down rough edges is paramount.

That makes me a bit sad, especially if we return the discussion to this particular genre.

If I only get to pick a single genre of fantasy roleplaying that stands to benefit from some deliciously politically incorrect b-movie goodness, it is Sword & Sorcery! 

Do I think Hasbro is the company that will publish such a product?

No. 

But you're saying Hasbro and it's corporate ilk is why no such products can't even be contemplated and why some posters react as if I punched them in the face. You're giving them far too much credit.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 21, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> *It's almost as if* *you are okay* with every rpg product being targeted towards the widest market even at the cost of becoming the blandest.
> 
> But no, your explanation does not hold water. Just because corporate interests are involved does not explain the extreme alignment of our hobby's products.
> 
> ...



You have a terrible habit of confusing explanations with personal opinion or preferences. Cut it out.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 21, 2021)

I've always felt that sword & sorcery is less "pretty" than typical fantasy.

Reading through Howard's Conan, he describes how things smell/feel/etc, and it's more "real" than idealized in how things are described.

It's not fantasy at all, but an example would be comparing the typical Star Trek ship to the typical Star Wars ship. Trek is usually clean, orderly, and pristine; the Millennium Falcon feels lived in.

Likewise, in Lord of the Rings, the orcs/villains are the people who are dirty, covered in grime, and so-forth. In a sword & sorcery story, that description might describe the heroes.

I think it might be argued that sword & sorcery also has an element of horror to it sometimes. There's a darker underlying tone, similar to some Arthurian tales or darker fairy tales -but where those stories embrace the fantastical, sword & sorcery embraces the struggle of the protagonists against those darker elements.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> It's almost as if you are okay with ...




*Mod Note:*
It is almost as if you want to see red text for making the discussion personal.  Address the position, not the person, please.



CapnZapp said:


> ...stands to benefit from some deliciously politically incorrect ...




Do you realize that dismissing things as "politically correct" is against our inclusivity policy?  If not, you are now reminded.

This reads like, "...genre that stands to benefit from treating people badly for being who they are...."  If treating people badly _benefits_ the genre... maybe you want to think really deeply about how good a thing that really is, or isn't.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 21, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> It's almost as if you are okay with every rpg product being targeted towards the widest market even at the cost of becoming the blandest.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'll leave the face-punching to one side.

But your comments about _every _RPG product are just wrong.

Have you looked at Burning Wheel? Have you looked at In A Wicked Age? Here are the Diamonds entries (Ace to King) for the Blood & Sex Oracle:

A mysterious star-lit revel on a high bare hilltop, with a single man in attendance.
A woman suddenly bereft of love and family, daughter to a long heritage of sorceresses and poisoners.
A raving prophet, advocating self-mortification and deprivation of the appetites.
A practitioner of law, with her several secretaries.
A chattel slave who has broken both his bonds and his master’s skull.
A practitioner of luck-magics traveling ahead of a ferocious storm.
The much-contested wedding of the province’s great beauty.
Some great wizard’s magical messenger, brass-skinned.
The secluded home of an exiled court-wizard, dense with unseen population.
A note written in an elegant hand, sweetly perfumed, and the child messenger bearing it.
A band of demons, laughing and malicious, authors of debauched sensuality and corrupt appetites.
A happy girl, promised in marriage to a gentleman, naive to the danger he represents.
A company of desert horsemen, hiding a woman amongst them.

I don't think that's bland.


----------



## Yora (Jul 21, 2021)

One thing that never sits right with me is the extreme conservativism and purism of many very vocal Sword & Sorcery. If it's up to them, all Sword & Sorcery can only be The Tower of the Elephant and Red Nails, and nothing else.
The points that it must be "humans only" and "no spellcasting" under any circumstances does nobody any service. If you want that for your campaign or your story, that's fine, but claiming that it's a non-negotiable universal truth is nonsensical.

What certainly is the case is that you don't see cutesy hobbits, grumpy dwarves, or frolicking elves. And no spunky catgirls or comedic goblins. Not because they are dwarves elves, or goblins, but because the tone doesn't fit. And I think adding some really outlandish characters can actually be a big boon. Stuff like ogres, insect-men, or lizardmen. Or have stuff like knights riding on pterodactyls and long-legged giant beetles. We see that kind of stuff in more Dying Earth type settings all the time, and that genre is really just Sword & Sorcery with robots and the occasional laser gun.

Playing in the Hyborian Age or a Hyborian Age knockoff is one option. It's not a mandatory requirement.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 23, 2021)

Yora said:


> One thing that never sits right with me is the extreme conservativism and purism of many very vocal Sword & Sorcery. If it's up to them, all Sword & Sorcery can only be The Tower of the Elephant and Red Nails, and nothing else.
> The points that it must be "humans only" and "no spellcasting" under any circumstances does nobody any service. If you want that for your campaign or your story, that's fine, but claiming that it's a non-negotiable universal truth is nonsensical.
> 
> What certainly is the case is that you don't see cutesy hobbits, grumpy dwarves, or frolicking elves. And no spunky catgirls or comedic goblins. Not because they are dwarves elves, or goblins, but because the tone doesn't fit. And I think adding some really outlandish characters can actually be a big boon. Stuff like ogres, insect-men, or lizardmen. Or have stuff like knights riding on pterodactyls and long-legged giant beetles. We see that kind of stuff in more Dying Earth type settings all the time, and that genre is really just Sword & Sorcery with robots and the occasional laser gun.
> ...



It's not as if elves are not unheard of in Sword & Sorcery either. It's not exactly a secret that Moorcock's Eldren - from whom the Melniboneans (e.g., Elric) and Vadagh (e.g., Corum) were descended - were basically elves with the serial numbers filed off.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 23, 2021)

Yora said:


> One thing that never sits right with me is the extreme conservativism and purism of many very vocal Sword & Sorcery. If it's up to them, all Sword & Sorcery can only be The Tower of the Elephant and Red Nails, and nothing else.
> The points that it must be "humans only" and "no spellcasting" under any circumstances does nobody any service. If you want that for your campaign or your story, that's fine, but claiming that it's a non-negotiable universal truth is nonsensical.
> 
> What certainly is the case is that you don't see cutesy hobbits, grumpy dwarves, or frolicking elves. And no spunky catgirls or comedic goblins. Not because they are dwarves elves, or goblins, but because the tone doesn't fit. And I think adding some really outlandish characters can actually be a big boon. Stuff like ogres, insect-men, or lizardmen. Or have stuff like knights riding on pterodactyls and long-legged giant beetles. We see that kind of stuff in more Dying Earth type settings all the time, and that genre is really just Sword & Sorcery with robots and the occasional laser gun.
> ...




I mostly agree with this.

I know it was a cartoon, but I feel that Thunder the Barbarian is also sword & sorcery (or at least as much as it can be for a children's cartoon); it includes things such as light-saber-knockoffs, various races, and elements of post-apocalyptic sci-fi.

Sword & Sorcery is definitely a tone. I think that's why it can be so hard to define sometimes. It's one of those things that is difficult to define, but is easy to feel/not-feel.

I think there can be spell casting, but I also think there are styles of magic and amounts of magic which can make achieving the S&S (sword & sorcery) feel difficult. For example, I've heard people describe D&D as sword & sorcery; I'm not saying those people are wrong, but my view is that how contemporary D&D approaches magic (and hit points and a few other things) works at cross-purposes to trying to build the tone of S&S.

In my own mind, I think Dark Sun had touches of S&S.

Oddly, even though it's generally viewed as a romantic fantasy, I think there are times when Dragonlance dips its toe into S&S territory -with some of Raistlin & Caramon's backstory and some of how elements of combat and the war are described.

I'll be surprised if some of those darker tones are still present in newer versions of those settings (or still present in a way which captures the same feel). I say that because my own perception is that it's a bit of a fashion-faux-pas to even imply some of those darker elements in contemporary WoTC products.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 23, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> In my own mind, I think Dark Sun had touches of S&S.



In my mind, more than just touches!


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 24, 2021)

pemerton said:


> In my mind, more than just touches!




Probably true

I didn't get introduced to the setting until later versions of it -when some of the elements I'd recognize as Sword & Sorcery had already started to change for a different vision.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 24, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> Probably true
> 
> I didn't get introduced to the setting until later versions of it -when some of the elements I'd recognize as Sword & Sorcery had already started to change for a different vision.



I have a 2nd ed version (the original, I think) that I've skimmed and the 4e version that I've read and have played a bit.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 24, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> But he doesn't then go and try to change the world. Even though he disagrees with how things are done, he himself isn't affected by it: he can fight his way out of trouble. He doesn't worry about the common people who don't have his strength and who have to suffer the consequences of a corrupt system.



In the REH stories, yes, Conan does change the world; he fails to change it for the better, despite being a sucker for a hard luck case...


Aldarc said:


> I agree that there are antithetical elements to S&S present before Dragonlance. However, I would say that in terms of overall trends, that Dragonlance (and possibly Ravenloft*) turned D&D with greater force towards heroic fantasy. I also don't think it's exactly a coincidence that OSR points to Dragonlance as "the beginning of the end" for Old School play in their revisionist historiographical narrative.



Old School Play as exemplified by the OSR is something I never even heard about until the mid-1990s, despite playing since 1981. DragonLance as a game did do one thing: give a mechanism to track the good/evil axis of the character by their deeds... but no one I know was using DLA until the 90's.
The most important thing to remember about the actual "old school era" is that there was no unifying internet communications... different groups played in different ways, many without recourse even to the articles in Dragon.


CapnZapp said:


> This is pretty much just a huge aside, but this triggers me.
> 
> The notion "combat is scarily dangerous" just doesn't work in any genre where you're meant to fight a lot.



Works fine in a variety of games... 

Rolemaster is quite deadly... but it doesn't prevent people from running classic dungeon fantasy with it... and despite the 20 to 60 minutes, my downstairs neighbor in 1992-1994 was running a game that killed two to three PCs _per session_, without resurrection magic. My rolemaster books got a bunch of use from them...
Prime Directive 1E: combat is particularly dangerous, but players know that Character gen only takes 10-15 minutes for any but the Analysis Paralysis crowd. On the other hand, explaining the initiative systemm is quite the hassle
Any of the games set in WW II, Viet Nam, or Korea as infantry or armor troops.
Many espionage games have deadly combat - the trick is to be the first to kill the opponent. 
Deadliness isn't a dealbreaker for many. For some it's even a draw.
I've done a little S&S type play. When I ran it, it was deadly. 


Aldarc said:


> I don't know either, because B/X and 1e derived games of the OSR movement seem mostly geared towards S&S fantasy.



I never got an S&S vibe from BX. I got a medieval super-heroes vibe. Even in 1981. Especially given Tolkien's Orcs were a real and present danger. and D&D/AD&D Orcs were only a minor threat.


CapnZapp said:


> But I'm talking about games where every single swing is played out.



There really aren't many of those.
Car Wars, CORPS, GURPS,,,
If the combat turn's longer than 3 sec, it's not doing one roll per swing. I've seen many SCA knights able to get more than one swing per second. I've seen the same from HEMA guys. And from boffer larps. And stage actors. Olympic fencers are even faster,. due to the low weapon weight. 



Doug McCrae said:


> I'm struggling to get my head around the idea that gratuitous female nudity isn't popular with the masses. Here in the UK our most popular newspaper, _The Sun_, featured topless women on page 3 until 2015.



the US is much more uptight about nudity and sex than the UK, as a generality. The UK is generally more uptight about violence and gore than the US. Different cultures. Different things found offensive by the majority. 

Really, two fairly different cultures divided by distance and revolution... and 230 years.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> In the REH stories, yes, Conan does change the world; he fails to change it for the better, despite being a sucker for a hard luck case...



@Dioltach didn't say that Conan doesn't change the world. He says that Conan doesn't go and try changing the world.



aramis erak said:


> Old School Play as exemplified by the OSR is something I never even heard about until the mid-1990s, despite playing since 1981. DragonLance as a game did do one thing: give a mechanism to track the good/evil axis of the character by their deeds... but no one I know was using DLA until the 90's.
> The most important thing to remember about the actual "old school era" is that there was no unifying internet communications... different groups played in different ways, many without recourse even to the articles in Dragon.



I would like to highlight a point that I made an effort to include in what you quoted: 


Aldarc said:


> I agree that there are antithetical elements to S&S present before Dragonlance. However, I would say that in terms of overall trends, that Dragonlance (and possibly Ravenloft*) turned D&D with greater force towards heroic fantasy. I also don't think it's exactly a coincidence that OSR points to Dragonlance as "the beginning of the end" for Old School play *in their revisionist historiographical narrative.*



Obviously, the OSR community's retrospective vision of the hobby's past is not universally true. However, it did undeniably resonate with an audience, who may or may not have even been playing during such time. One article within the past year even noted the way in which OSR actually diverges in play from "Gygaxian" or other older forms of play. 



aramis erak said:


> I never got an S&S vibe from BX. I got a medieval super-heroes vibe. Even in 1981. Especially given Tolkien's Orcs were a real and present danger. and D&D/AD&D Orcs were only a minor threat.



However, I'm talking of games derived from B/X in the OSR movement rather than B/X itself.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 24, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> @Dioltach didn't say that Conan doesn't change the world. He says that Conan doesn't go and try changing the world.



He didn't? He set out with a drive to avenge his parents and to become a king... For a Cimmerian to become king of Aquilonia is a HUGE change. Any of the "civilized" kingdoms having a Cimmerian on the throne is a big change to the politics.
Conan also being a softie, he is constantly deciding to help people beyond what he's paid for.
Conan, despite being the vision of S&S for the  masses who are not bibliophiles, is really an edge case.  He has a destiny. 

Then again, Conan wasn't afraid to use a wizard when he needed one, either. He just tried to  not need one... 

In no small irony, Conan is often the most civil character in the story... and he's the barbarian.

For me, the key tropes of S&S are:

Magic is slow but potentially powerful; the longer the ritual and the more narrow the ritual window, the more powerful.
Skill at arms trumps magic in the short term; skill at magic trumps war in the long term.
Many magics are gained from demonic pacts, rather than innate abilities or personal learned skill.
No matter how good the haul, you'll be broke before the next job.
Skill at arms is a dangerous profession...
Most are mildly xenophobic, a large minority are majorly xenophobic.
Protagonists often have friends in other cultures and odd places.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 24, 2021)

For Conan in particular, there are also elements of Howard trying to explore what it means to be "civilized."

Despite Conan being viewed as a savage and a barbarian, there are times when he is arguably far more virtuous than people who claim to be morally superior and civilized. I mean, yeah, Conan is hacking people to bits, drinking, and womanizing, but his approach to life is arguably more straightforward and honest than scheming politicians, poisoners, and so on. 

I'm not sure if that's a personal battle (which tends to be something that a lot of S&S contains) or if it's more of a personal view of Howard's coming through in his work. 



Is anyone else familiar with Thundarr the Barbarian?


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 24, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> He didn't? He set out with a drive to avenge his parents and to become a king... For a Cimmerian to become king of Aquilonia is a HUGE change. Any of the "civilized" kingdoms having a Cimmerian on the throne is a big change to the politics.



I strongly suspect that you are misunderstanding and quibbling about what was likely meant by setting out to make change.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 25, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> Is anyone else familiar with Thundarr the Barbarian?



Moderately. I do agree with someone else that it is S&S, despite the post-holocaust setting and multiple intelligent species.


----------



## Yora (Jul 25, 2021)

Argyle King said:


> For Conan in particular, there are also elements of Howard trying to explore what it means to be "civilized."
> 
> Despite Conan being viewed as a savage and a barbarian, there are times when he is arguably far more virtuous than people who claim to be morally superior and civilized. I mean, yeah, Conan is hacking people to bits, drinking, and womanizing, but his approach to life is arguably more straightforward and honest than scheming politicians, poisoners, and so on.
> 
> I'm not sure if that's a personal battle (which tends to be something that a lot of S&S contains) or if it's more of a personal view of Howard's coming through in his work.



I believe an important bit that often gets unnoticed, is that Howard sees both types of societies as deeply flawed and full of problems. He was a huge history nerd, and if I am not mixing up my sources, saw the fall of the ancient civilzations as great tragedies. He loves great civilizations, or at least the idea of them, but unlike many of his contemporaries was under no illusions that this time it is different and Western Civilization has won the struggle forever. Would have been fascinating what he would have thought of the nuclear arms race.
He describes barbarism as the natural state of human society, to which civilizations are temporary aberrations. But that doesn't make barbarism better, or even desirable.
Now I could be absolutely wrong and completely mix up different people, but I think Howard even said somewhere that he probably wouldn't be doing well in a barbaric society. Conan is not a role model, but a fanciful fantasy.


----------



## Bilharzia (Jul 27, 2021)

Phllip Emery writes about the_ motifs _of sword & sorcery, instead of plot elements. This is a better and more useful way of thinking about the genre.

Sword-&-sorcery is intense. All else is subjugated to this effect
Sword-&-sorcery is potentially amoral
Sword-&-sorcery is the combination of violence and the numinous: a double-helix of violences which entwine around intensity
Sword-&-sorcery eschews explicit development of milieu or character or concept
Sword-&-sorcery is generally naturally a short story form
Sword-&-sorcery contains an element of deathwish in its sensibility
Sword-&-sorcery has a Chthonic sensibility
Sword-&-sorcery has a potential element of tragedy in its sensibility
Sword-&-sorcery combines explicit and implicit horror
The Sword-&-sorcery protagonist is a loner – a figure apart or other
Sword-&-sorcery addresses the irrational through the very fact of its connection with the numinous effect
Sword-&-sorcery is about power
Sword-&-sorcery is highly ‘visual’ (either through the presence or the absence of the visual).
This list is taken from an interview with Emery on Black Gate magazine:




__





						The Aesthetics of Sword & Sorcery: An Interview with Philip Emery – Black Gate
					





					www.blackgate.com


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2021)

Can't we get a long way by saying that, in S&S the protagonists _leads _rather than_ being led_. So if things go wrong, it's on them - they're not victims of fate or "larger forces". And if things go right, it's because of the choices they made.

That's not perfect - there's still the role of the phoenix on the sword in The Phoenix on the Sword - but it's a start to trying to identify the contrast with LotR or even Earthsea.

In the context of RPGing I'm always an advocate of player-driven rather than GM-driven play, but I think S&S even moreso demands this sort of approach.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 27, 2021)

Bilharzia said:


> Phllip Emery writes about the_ motifs _of sword & sorcery, instead of plot elements. This is a better and more useful way of thinking about the genre.
> 
> Sword-&-sorcery is intense. All else is subjugated to this effect
> Sword-&-sorcery is potentially amoral
> ...



Good post!


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 27, 2021)

This line thou

"Sword-&-sorcery is the combination of violence and the numinous: a double-helix of violences which entwine around intensity"



"Luckily", he goes on to explain:

_the double-helix mentioned refers to characterizing REH’s way of depicting violence into physical violence or kinetic violence, emotional or potential violence (the berserker rage his protagonists tend to experience conflates the kinetic and the emotional), and stylistic violence, in respect of Howard simply the power of his prose or poetry. The second strand of the helix refers to the ideas of the theologian Rudolph Otto, who broke the effect of the numinous into three components, which he collectively names the ‘mysterium tremendum’, these being ‘overpoweringness’, ‘energy’ or ‘urgency’, and ‘awefulness’ or ‘unapproachability’._​


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 29, 2021)

Bilharzia said:


> Phllip Emery writes about the_ motifs _of sword & sorcery, instead of plot elements. This is a better and more useful way of thinking about the genre.
> 
> Sword-&-sorcery is intense. All else is subjugated to this effect
> Sword-&-sorcery is potentially amoral
> ...



I would wager that #10 is one of the biggest hurdles of trope play for a largely group-oriented hobby.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 29, 2021)

Not necessarily: the PCs don't have to be loners, they just need to be outsiders. No emotional ties to the adventure's setting, and a sense of the stange and alien.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 29, 2021)

It is funny how Xenforo retains the numbering each time the list is quoted!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 29, 2021)

The Conan movies effectively have a party. The stories he has companions at times.


----------



## Yora (Jul 29, 2021)

I don't think he ever was really alone in any adventure. I can't recall very story on the top of my head right now, but I can't imagine Howard's style without Conan having anyone to talk and explain himself to.
(Now that I think of it, it's an interesting method to let your protagonist do a majority of the exposition.)


----------



## Bilharzia (Jul 30, 2021)

> PCs don't have to be loners, they just need to be outsiders. No emotional ties to the adventure's setting, and a sense of the strange and alien.




The "loner" motif seems like it would be a problem, but @Dioltach suggestion that it is the "outsider" quality of the protagonists that applies to a group as much as a loner.



> The Conan movies effectively have a party. The stories he has companions at times.



Companions who almost always die or leave, or we simply never see again. In the Arnie films, one companion dies, one betrays, not a great record. Elric is even worse for this, whose companions are as doomed as a Spinal Tap drummer.


----------



## VelvetViolet (Jul 30, 2021)

Did you mention Planetary Romance and Sword & Planet genres yet? Those are two genres that it is hard to distinguish from one another, and they're basically the scifi equivalent of Sword & Sorcery.


----------



## Yora (Jul 30, 2021)

Sword & Planet is the term used by people who think Planetary Romance sounds weird.


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 30, 2021)

Or people who feel guilty about Earth coming between Mars and Venus.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 31, 2021)

A valuable aspect of D&D-style roleplaying is building up your character. (Mechanically that is, as opposed to roleplaying an naughty word getting better at interacting with humans)

So for me one challenge with the S&S style, many of whose components I love, is how to retain this without compromising the S&S-iness (sassiness?) too much.

Bringing this up because of the group vs lone hero discussion. Yes, S&S is definitely one of the lone hero genres. But no, that needs to be shucked out the window immediately assuming you're playing with more than one character. (For a oneoff I guess having one player play the main character and everybody else play an expendable supporting character, but now I'm talking a regular rpg campaign)

I'm thinking along the lines of...

...instead of making players deck out their characters in magical trinkets and other loot, you need a system whereby a character can "absorb" the loot and convert it into intrinsic character abilities. Remember, the reason the D&D game allows +1 swords is because it is fun to be given the power to customize your character build yourself, as opposed to just picking between the choices the class designer allows you. 

...instead of investing in traditional D&D-style fantasy downtime activities such as building your wizard tower or donating to the local orphanage, you want to give your players direct and clear motivations to act mercenary and greedy like "real" S&S heroes. In real life an endless supply of wine, women and song would be plenty motivation for many, but in a game that just doesn't cut it. 

You probably could do well introducing a Reputation score to whatever game you're using, so players have something to spend that gold on that gives tangible in-game benefits - opening doors as it were, making NPCs react with ever-greater respect and fear, and so on.

Of course you might argue that for D&D "level" is an excellent measure of your awesomeness and overall success as a hero. From this point of view, that would just mean you have added a gold for xp scheme, even if limited to "gold for social xp".

Which brings me back to my point: D&D has for a long time (all the way back to 2000) offered the PERFECT motivator for the mercenary behavior we love in our S&S heroes: being able to purchase magic items. 

But S&S heroes don't keep material wealth. They lose gold and items just as fast as they gain them, whether it's magical swords or entire kingdoms.

D&D more or less assumes that once you have acquired a magical item, it will never go away, unless you voluntarily get rid of it, perhaps upgrading it for something better. But this doesn't fly in S&S.

For me the solution would be a way to internalize the otherwise external benefits. Instead of you looting a +1 sword, your adventures have made you master new sword-fighting techniques, giving you +1 with the regular rusty sword you're using.

Skill, not loot. Loot can be taken away. Skill and experience can't. It just grows and grows.

Which is exactly the train you need and want in an ongoing campaign where you use a D&D-like game for your S&S adventures.

---

This would probably never work if the magic items we are aiming to replace were the standard D&D catalog of items. But in S&S it is not. Being suddenly able to shoot Fireballs might sound strange and wonky, except you don't loot Necklaces of Fireball in S&S. 

Purchasing +1 swords on the other hand, and interpreting that as you learning to kill better with your sword, is. 

So my idea would be that your S&S hero could spend (say) 1,000 gold to improve his melee fighting skill by +1

This assumes that in your preferred taste of D&D (or Pathfinder etc), 1,000 gp is what a +1 sword or axe costs. You probably don't want to force the player to specify a specific group of weapons (far too many D&D games feature players that drop magic weapons like hot turds simply because they have specialized in axes and this is a magical hammer; even with the hammer's magic, it's still better for them to use axes) even though this would represent a straight upgrade.

You would rely on your players' ability to distinguish between items that fit S&S tropes and items that aren't suitable for the genre. (Hint: don't play with someone who insists that it "makes sense" for his character to learn the equivalence to Boots of Flying...)

For many play groups magic items is pretty much the ONLY motivation for caring about gold at all once past the first level or two (where you are still so poor that you might need money for basic needs like a horse or food or a suit of armor). 

In a game of S&S, where players find that money runs between their fingers like sand, it would be nigh impossible to ask them to risk their lives for gold like true S&S heroes. Unless your roleplay with real wine, women and song, the celebratory night of revelry is a one-minute summary before the adventures move on, and that just doesn't cut it.

And why would you? D&D has this great framework of character customization that is HIGHLY motivating players to venture forth, so why would you not want to use it? Both in general, but here specifically when you actively encourage mercenary behavior?!


----------



## Yora (Jul 31, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> You probably could do well introducing a Reputation score to whatever game you're using, so players have something to spend that gold on that gives tangible in-game benefits - opening doors as it were, making NPCs react with ever-greater respect and fear, and so on.



Worlds Without Number has an interesting mechanic for this. And I believe it's completely independent of all other mechanics, so it could easily be dropped into any other games.

I am one of those people who, in their later years of their 30s, found that there's actually something to the idea that OD&D makes for a great Sword & Sorcery game. Precisely because there are so few rules and characters barely have any abilities.
Anything that doesn't have a specific mechanic restricted to special classes or character upgrades becomes something that everyone can do. A fighter who only gets hit points, saving throws, and attack bonus and nothing else actually becomes very flexible and versatile. It makes freeform playing the default mode, with mechanics for PC actions being restricted to a few special cases, like making attacks and casting spells.


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 31, 2021)

@CapnZapp, a short reply to your long post regarding magic items boosting characters, flat progression, and taking items away: Have you looked into Index Card RPG? It's a stripped-down D&D game that was explicitly designed for that possibility.


----------



## Bilharzia (Jul 31, 2021)

It's not as if there is a shortage of RPGs outside of d&d that are suitable for Sword & Sorcery style games. Skill-based without levels, which describes most RPGs in fact.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 31, 2021)

Yora said:


> Worlds Without Number has an interesting mechanic for this. And I believe it's completely independent of all other mechanics, so it could easily be dropped into any other games.
> 
> I am one of those people who, in their later years of their 30s, found that there's actually something to the idea that OD&D makes for a great Sword & Sorcery game. Precisely because there are so few rules and characters barely have any abilities.
> Anything that doesn't have a specific mechanic restricted to special classes or character upgrades becomes something that everyone can do. A fighter who only gets hit points, saving throws, and attack bonus and nothing else actually becomes very flexible and versatile. It makes freeform playing the default mode, with mechanics for PC actions being restricted to a few special cases, like making attacks and casting spells.



Amen to that. 

Thinking of Pathfinder 2, where you can't even climb a hill while fighting off Harpys without a specific (and easily missed) feat... even if you're a level 20 fighter!


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 1, 2021)

As a reply to recent posts:

I have found that the vast majority of RPGs don't even attempt system balance. D&D is by far the games put the most effort into this quality.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 1, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> As a reply to recent posts:
> 
> I have found that the vast majority of RPGs don't even attempt system balance. D&D is by far the games put the most effort into this quality.



I would argue that D&D has to put the most effort into it because its system design, particularly in the WotC era and its emphasis on character builds, rewards system/rules mastery by the players. You are essentially lauding D&D for solving its own self-created problems.


----------



## Blue Orange (Aug 1, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I would argue that D&D has to put the most effort into it because its system design, particularly in the WotC era and its emphasis on character builds, rewards system/rules mastery by the players. You are essentially lauding D&D for solving its own self-created problems.




There's also a much larger (huger or gianter, really) player base. There are whole subreddits devoted to optimizing D&D characters, and a lot of the changes in new editions are responses to the ways people found to exploit the older editions. (Caps on damage for spells? Concentration? However they nerfed CoDzilla?) There are much smaller groups of people trying to do that even for _Call of Cthulhu_, let alone indie games, so it's much less of an issue.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 1, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> You are essentially lauding D&D for solving its own self-created problems.



???

Balance is a solution, not a problem.

Most games I like are notoriously not-balanced.

In theory you have level-headed and impersonal players who make sure not to create characters significantly better than those of their fellow group members, but in practice the siren song of getting to be the hero always gets you in the end.

Much better if the GM can just hand out the rulebook trusting it's designers to not allow too-powerful builds. (Obviously the GM might still want to help newcomers into avoiding the inevitable clunkers)

And no, we don't focus our games around damage and combat performance only. A common tactic to try to trash the desire for balance in ttrpgs is to paint those wanting balance as roll-playing munchkins.

But you know what?

_Everybody_ benefits from balance. If you're not interested or concerned about balance in the slightest then by definition you would find a balanced game just as good as an imbalanced one.

While people that do appreciate balance only finds the latter category suitable.

So while imbalanced games cater only to a portion of the market, balanced ones cater to everybody.

Then there's the argument "the desire for balance leeched the fun out of the game design". That's a fair objection; just take 4E and PF2 as warning examples.

5E however, succeeds to a significant degree because it strikes a good balance between fun, simplicity and balance!


----------



## pemerton (Aug 1, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> I have found that the vast majority of RPGs don't even attempt system balance. D&D is by far the games put the most effort into this quality.





Aldarc said:


> I would argue that D&D has to put the most effort into it because its system design, particularly in the WotC era and its emphasis on character builds, rewards system/rules mastery by the players. You are essentially lauding D&D for solving its own self-created problems.



Adding to what Aldarc says: in what RPGs that are not either D&D variants, or Champions-style points-buy, is balance a problem?

Thinking of "old" RPGs: I've never heard of balance being an issue in RuneQuest. I believe from play that it's not an issue in Classic Traveller. In Rolemaster it's easy to get the balance you want by tweaking a few spell lists.

Thinking of "contemporary" RPGs: has anyone ever found balance to be a problem in Apocalypse World? Dungeon World? Burning Wheel? HeroWars/Quest? I've never heard of it.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 2, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> Balance is a solution, not a problem.



Balance is a designer-created solution for a designer-created problem. 

It's a bit like praising Exxon for its efforts and all the money it spent helping to clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

There are some games that don't put in that much effort because they don't haul anywhere near as much oil to spill as to generate a potential environmental disaster. 

Or even, there are a fair number of games out there that don't have to worry about balancing linear fighters vs. quadratic wizards because they don't design quadratic wizards in the first place. 



CapnZapp said:


> Most games I like are notoriously not-balanced.



This may say more about you than the games in question. Simply because WotC era puts the most effort into balancing the game doesn't make it an inherently worthy endeavor. There are games that require less effort to balance than D&D because they are less prone to game-breaking spells, combos, builds, or the like. There are games where balance isn't fetishisized to the extent that it is in D&D, and yet they are likely more balanced than D&D 5e.


----------



## aramis erak (Aug 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Adding to what Aldarc says: in what RPGs that are not either D&D variants, or Champions-style points-buy, is balance a problem?
> 
> Thinking of "old" RPGs: I've never heard of balance being an issue in RuneQuest. I believe from play that it's not an issue in Classic Traveller. In Rolemaster it's easy to get the balance you want by tweaking a few spell lists.
> 
> Thinking of "contemporary" RPGs: has anyone ever found balance to be a problem in Apocalypse World? Dungeon World? Burning Wheel? HeroWars/Quest? I've never heard of it.



Many Fate flavors are "everyone has the same number of skills, and the same number of each level..." 
The use of the Pyramid ...
+5 ×1, +4 ×2, +3 ×3, +2 ×4, +1 ×5... 
"advancement" in many of these is simply swap a skill at +X with a skill at +(X+1) 
_EG freido has Sword +3 and Blaster +2, and hits a milestone, so deciding he needs more blaster, he swaps them and now is Sword +2 and Blaster +3. He also later swaps his +1 pilot (and awarness 0) for Awareness +1 and Pilot 0._
It's not the same kind of balance, but it's a tyrannical one - not all skills are equally valuable in play, but are equal in Allowed Skill Levels. Picking wisely can be a big issue.

Star Trek Adventures and Dune (both 2d20 system games) have a fairly Similar issue. One can math-check STA characters in two sets of chain addition. All player characters have the same Attribute and Discipline totals at start. 
The talent (~ Feat) selection tries to keep balance of mechanical interest.


----------



## CapnZapp (Aug 2, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Balance is a designer-created solution for a designer-created problem.
> 
> It's a bit like praising Exxon for its efforts and all the money it spent helping to clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill.



Okay, I stopped reading there. You are now officially preposterous. Good day.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 2, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Many Fate flavors are "everyone has the same number of skills, and the same number of each level..."
> The use of the Pyramid ...
> +5 ×1, +4 ×2, +3 ×3, +2 ×4, +1 ×5...
> "advancement" in many of these is simply swap a skill at +X with a skill at +(X+1)
> ...



You're laying your thumb quite heavily on the scale there, mate.


----------



## Blue Orange (Aug 2, 2021)

Call me naive, but what's with all these flamewars about game systems? I'm too cheap to play Warhammer, so what? Plenty of people like it and I appreciate the creative outlet of painting the minis. I think 4E is trying too hard to be World of Warcraft--maybe some other people like it, let them enjoy it. I think 5E's death saves make it a little too Disney--maybe when my current campaign is done I'll find a DCC group. If I don't like coffee ice cream I don't start a holy war against it...


----------



## Umbran (Aug 2, 2021)

CapnZapp said:


> You are now officially preposterous.




*Mod Note:*

And you ar officially done with this thread for rudeness.  Good day.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 2, 2021)

I see some interesting points about balance and whether it is a problem. I feel that point might be better served by starting a thread about it


----------

