Quote from: SosthenesThat's the way I understood it, too. Should have written it that way. But still, I read Howard's tales before and liked the film. On the other hand, I'm one of those who thinks stuff you know from the book is a bonus, not something that has to be expected. Especially with a story like Conan where the actual plot isn't _that_ important.

Neverwind Arnie, the big selling point of conan for me was the production. Great settings, absolutely uber-fantastic music. James Earl Jones with a mullet.

Thulsa "Mullet" Doom

Quote from: The Good AssyrianBarbarians of Lemuria – A simple, but interesting RPG is based on the Sword & Sorcery books of Lin Carter.  Although I personally don't think that Carter's works are the best examples of the genre, this game has some very good points and could easily be used for any Sword & Sorcery setting.  Even better, it is entirely free!  It can be found on the web at http://www.geocities.com/barbariansoflemuria/.

Thanks for the mention.

Quote from: Simon WThanks for the mention.

No problem, Simon!    As I mentioned, I really liked the game for its simplicity and use of the ideas of "careers" that really fits the typical S&S protagonist.  The fact that you've made it available on the Internet for free is a big bonus, as well.  Thanks for doing that, btw.


TGA

Melan:  Wow, that thread on Dragonsfoot was impressive.  I have been struggling to devise ways to practically incorporate the feel of literary S&S for some time, with varying degrees of success.  

As has been pointed out it is made harder by the structural elements of most RPGs, particularly the Great Old One (D&D).  To be honest, I think that these elements, including such things as the concept of the adventuring party, good vs. evil, healing clerics, magic as technology, etc, are present precisely because they make roleplaying more accessible.  It is easier for most people to wrap their head around these ideas, create a viable playing group and have fun.  The elements of literary S&S are harder to translate into fun for a larger audience, I suspect.

Frankly, I also think that some of it is social in nature.  I have always struggled with the problem that it has been my experience that gritty S&S style games have worked best with small groups of players, or even better with just a single GM and player.  Now, I am totally comfortable with this setup (in fact many of my formative RPG experiences were one-on-one games, so I still harbor a preference for them), but it has turned out to be almost impractical in a social sense.  Trying to get a game together that includes some friends and excludes others has sometimes proved to be tricky.

So what practical advice can I give?  Well, I think that the following conditions would be best for a more pure S&S game:

1.  Small number of players.  One or two is best.  No more than four.  I ran a Conan game with five last Sunday and although we used the classic "you are all mercenaries" setup, I think that it will get stale quickly.
2.  Use a game system that is quick and decisive.  I don't personally think that more crunchy and "tactical" games (D&D 3.5 frex) are particularly suitable, but ymmv.  I have gotten a bit smitten by this ZeFRS game, so I may be using it more in the future for S&S inspired games.
3.  Use a bottom-up approach to setting, by which I mean don't sweat the big picture.  Just start the action in a burning fort on the frontier, in a desert sandstorm, or in the grimy streets of a crime-infested city and go from there.  Start with immediate threats to life and limb (rampaging barbarians, desert nomads, Toad-worshiping cultists) and then build a larger picture gradually.
4.  Leave some room for the PCs to be heroes.  The milieu may be cold and heartless, but if they get a chance to rescue the virgin from the Cult of the Spider God, it makes them feel better...

Just some thoughts.


TGA

Starting with The Good Assyrian's post and then going back to a few previous ones.

Quote1. Small number of players. One or two is best. No more than four. I ran a Conan game with five last Sunday and although we used the classic "you are all mercenaries" setup, I think that it will get stale quickly.

I have a different experience with S&S-themed D&D campaigns, and don't see group size as a hard limit. The key question is the willingness of the players to adopt a particular mindset and cast aside some of the strong preconceptions roleplaying games tend to instill. A lot of things which are not typical in generic fantasy. The shady protagonists/amorality thing is one, but there are others, such as assumptions about the game world, what can happen to your character in the campaign, etc. It is not even rules usually, just assumptions about using them a certain way.

Quote2. Use a game system that is quick and decisive. I don't personally think that more crunchy and "tactical" games (D&D 3.5 frex) are particularly suitable, but ymmv. I have gotten a bit smitten by this ZeFRS game, so I may be using it more in the future for S&S inspired games.

When I was using 3.0, it more or less worked, but I implemented a lot of house rules. Now that I am using a much lighter C&C/d20 light variant, the game goes smoother. But this may just be a personal preference, as in-print S&S systems show: Conan d20 and Iron Heroes are both heavier than base d20.

Quote3. Use a bottom-up approach to setting, by which I mean don't sweat the big picture. Just start the action in a burning fort on the frontier, in a desert sandstorm, or in the grimy streets of a crime-infested city and go from there. Start with immediate threats to life and limb (rampaging barbarians, desert nomads, Toad-worshiping cultists) and then build a larger picture gradually.

I have previously argued to this effect, until a friend of mine pointed out that Howard himself had written himself a sort of "world guide". Nevertheless, your point stands. Mosaic-like worldbuilding and exotic colour evoke a pretty strong S&S feel.

Quote4. Leave some room for the PCs to be heroes. The milieu may be cold and heartless, but if they get a chance to rescue the virgin from the Cult of the Spider God, it makes them feel better...

This is where my point about humanity/inhumanity comes in. Even if you are an amoral, jaded mercenary, the Cult of the Spider God is probably worse than you. On the other hand, I have had good experiences with campaigns where all players were running shady types, and it was all about the bottom line, so it is definitely possible.

Settembrini, a somewhat offtopic point:

QuoteNow, I really am thankful and impressed by your realization, that the longing for S&S, as well as the re-imagination of stuff like the Wilderlands is counter-reformatory in concept: unthinkable without the preceding movement and changed by it thoroughly. Nowadays the S&S crowd is way more intolerant and radical in thinking than the gonzo-creators of old were.
The craving to do D&D "as it really was meant to be", is eating up even Gygaxian Elements like Homlett, as the linked thread nicely shows. I can really live with the jumbled, organically grown mashup of Tolkien pastiche on the S&S foundation D&D products are nowadays. It´s what it is, it emerged. It´s natural, opposed to the ideas of purity.

You are right, yet in a characteristically Prussian manner, going overboard with your point. The quest for a more pure S&S game is not based on intolerance, rather recognised preferences which run contrary to established wisdom (this analogy could be extended to "old school" in general; there is certainly a lot of overlap). To some, it comes naturally, because it is what they grew up with, or it is what they have been doing forever. For others, it is a long process of discovery/rediscovery. This second group has to create its own form of play out of known elements, and it is done on two tracks:
1) What is Sword&Sorcery?
2) What isn't?
Both approaches are legitimate, and they can be followed at the same time, to various degrees. [edit]Most people are just doing the second, because they are already coming from a long-time background of gaming[/edit]. To those who aren't in search of a S&S campaign, the rejection of ingrained ideas may appear as intolerance, and of course, missionary zeal or snarky reactions to snarky dismissals (in the case of old school, the fucking "it is only nostalgia/rose coloured glasses" argument) leads to nasty flame wars and so on.

Identifying and excluding what you don't like is perfectly okay, much better than going with a group compromise that leaves you burned out. We have no social obligation to follow a certain model of gaming. In fact, doing that without questioning can lead to a lot of bitterness and less enjoyment. Every game aspect and element is open to criticism, and again, removal if it makes for a better experience for you. You write as if Gygax's works were sacrosanct and inviolable. Nonsense. They are just game material, and whether they fit into your game or not is your prerogative. I certainly don't like Hommlet and Yggsburgh, and have my reasons for this - first and foremost among them is the fact that I am not shooting for a Gygaxian campaign.

QuoteIf everything is dark and moody, it´s just as boring, repetetive and derivative as the Forgotten Realms are. And stereotypical derivitism is the last thing we want, isn´t it?

This, however, I agree with 100% and then some.

Quote@Sosthenes: At least Conan stories are very one dimensional in their morals. Conan is right, all others are wrong. Isn´t that the real problem for the romanticist crowd? Saying contemporary D&D is too unidimensional in it´s moral outlook is more a critique of the allegedly amoral nature of implicit D&D gameplay?

You are making the mistake that Conan "is" S&S, when he is just its most recognisable face. Certainly, Jirel of Joiry and Ffahrd are characters where this split is much weaker, if it exists at all.

I´m especially not implying that Gygax is sacrosanct. But then, if Gygax isn´t sacrosanct, there is no D&D "as it really was meant to be played".
The concept of purity has imploded with it.

Sosthenes:

QuoteLet's start with the latter issue. The "amoral gameplay" is obviously centered on the most simplistic form of dungeon-bashing, i.e. kill-and-loot games. This doesn't just concern critics, this is a big problem for lots of D&D players, too. Which is the main reason why most adventures and campaigns don't actually work like that, at least in my experience. Most have an ulterior motive, where the loot aspect is basically a game-within-the-game, just like optimizing your character with just the right item and class combinations is.

Yes, this dilemma has been one of the principal rallying points of D&D's detractors, and it is a shrewd observation that eventually, there emerged a sort of compromise which made collecting loot okay - you are doing it for a greater good, and it is no longer the numero uno source of XP (this is one of the most overlooked important rule changes between 1e and 2e). Similar concessions have been made regarding slaughtering humanoids - today, killing some orcs just doesn't cut it, because it makes us uncomfortable and evokes unpleasant images. I admit I have a problem with it as well. Interestingly, Sword&Sorcery provides a way out of this mess, in that it is not only you who are doing unpleasant things, but the whole world is built like that, and there is no moral contrast between the civilised "cowboys" and the savage "Indians". You just fall on different sides of the conflict, and your character does not pretend to be Lawful Good just because you are killing cavemen.

QuoteThat's the way I understood it, too. Should have written it that way. But still, I read Howard's tales before and liked the film. On the other hand, I'm one of those who thinks stuff you know from the book is a bonus, not something that has to be expected. Especially with a story like Conan where the actual plot isn't _that_ important.

Heh, interesting how that is. I don't care much for the story of the movie, and it is not literally faithful to REH's short stories. What it has in spades, however, is the right kind of imagery. I don't know of any other movie that did the "wastelands and ruins" thing of S&S literature so well; Thulsa Doom was perfect, the pilgrimage site was perfect, the sinful city was perfect... Nothing outside a few swords&sandals flicks comes close.

Quote from: SettembriniBut then, if Gygax isn´t sacrosanct, there is no D&D "as it really was meant to be played".

I am comfortable with that idea.

Settembrini, re. purity: that's true, but who's making an argument for purity? Melan is simply trying to get one specific playstyle right, which as he says was one among others in the amorphous era of early D&D. He's bringing something into sharper focus than it originally was--that's neither revisionist nor relativist, it's creative.

Well, that´s great!
So we are all in agreement. But the purity-nazis (as in soup-nazi) exist, and it needed to be spelled out.

We are all in the same boat here, it seems.

Quote from: SettembriniWe are all in the same boat here, it seems.

Yep!  

My personal quest to find ways to inject S&S themes in my gaming has more to do with the fact that I enjoy the original fiction and I think that some like-minded players might also enjoy it in their gaming.  It is not born of a need to force people to play The One True Way™.

We get enough of that already...


TGA

I really like your list of hints here.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian1.  Small number of players.  One or two is best.  No more than four.  I ran a Conan game with five last Sunday and although we used the classic "you are all mercenaries" setup, I think that it will get stale quickly.

Do you think a game with a large amount of players like the five player game you ran recently. Would get less stale or stay fresher longer (so to speak). If it was Fairly PVP heavy like in Pseudoephedrine's "Iron Heros for Bad People" game?

Quote from: The Good Assyrian2.  Use a game system that is quick and decisive.  I don't personally think that more crunchy and "tactical" games (D&D 3.5 frex) are particularly suitable, but ymmv.  I have gotten a bit smitten by this ZeFRS game, so I may be using it more in the future for S&S inspired games.

Have you checked out "Broadsword"? I do believe the Evil DM had a hand in writing this. I have not had a chance to check it out. But the other products I have gotten from Deep7 have been good. The game uses the 1PG system. So it is definitely rules light.

Quote from: The Good Assyrian3.  Use a bottom-up approach to setting, by which I mean don't sweat the big picture.  Just start the action in a burning fort on the frontier, in a desert sandstorm, or in the grimy streets of a crime-infested city and go from there.  Start with immediate threats to life and limb (rampaging barbarians, desert nomads, Toad-worshiping cultists) and then build a larger picture gradually.
4.  Leave some room for the PCs to be heroes.  The milieu may be cold and heartless, but if they get a chance to rescue the virgin from the Cult of the Spider God, it makes them feel better...

Just some thoughts.


TGA

Yeah, Broadsword was the Evil DM and Jeff Hebert, the guy behind Hero Maker.  What I really like about the Evil DM's approach to S&S is that he may be a Howard purist, but he doesn't see Howard as the end-all and be-all of the genre.  I personally fall into that trap all the time.

i got MRQ relatively recently (thanks balbinus!) but haven't the chance to use it.  does anyone think that it would do S & S well?