Quote from: RPGPundit;463404That's pretty much how I'm considering the Realms in my current campaign, yes.

RPGPundit

So Pundit, from what I have read it doesn't seem that your current campaign is directly inspired by Sword and Sorcery fiction, but how does ol' Elminster fit in to your game, if at all?

One of the coolest parts in my opinion of the discussion of toning down the high fantasy elements of the Realms was the cool stuff you can do with the Big El if he doesn't have to fit the Greenwood mold of Gandalf clone.


-TGA

I dunno. I woul dlike to be convinced by the very respected Good Assyrian. But when I read that the conscious lit-emu approach resulted in a City without a name or map, but a lot of consciously inserted themes and morality plays, I wonder if this is what I would like to participate in as a player.
Now Melan, he's got his world named, mapped and everything else. Also, Gygax et al.
But undefined cities and "themes". Sorry dude, I might be misreading you, or suffer from paranoia. But if somebody asked me about the evils lit-emu mindset potentially brings to GMing, I feel inclined to point right here then.

What is fucking wrong with just playing the world you like? I cannot understand this at all it seems. And as the error must lie with me, I stop trying to fight this phenomenon.

Quote from: Settembrini;463525I dunno. I woul dlike to be convinced by the very respected Good Assyrian. But when I read that the conscious lit-emu approach resulted in a City without a name or map, but a lot of consciously inserted themes and morality plays, I wonder if this is what I would like to participate in as a player.

And that's all cool.  Maybe it wouldn't be the game for you and I respect that.  But that isn't the point, is it?  Rather, my point is that you can use these tools, like many others, to create a game that you and your friends *will* enjoy.  By making conscious decisions about what you want in a game.

Quote from: Settembrini;463525Now Melan, he's got his world named, mapped and everything else. Also, Gygax et al.
But undefined cities and "themes". Sorry dude, I might be misreading you, or suffer from paranoia. But if somebody asked me about the evils lit-emu mindset potentially brings to GMing, I feel inclined to point right here then.

LOL you *may* be suffering from paranoia.  There were maps and names.  The Red Loon Tavern had a very detailed map, including of the gambling den in the basement.  I used the excellent geomorph maps from the old TSR Lankhmar rules to fill out the different sections of The City.  And the city had a name - The City - as in Eis Ten Polin.

Point anywhere you like, but I suspect that you are finding storygames bogiemen everywhere you look.

Quote from: Settembrini;463525What is fucking wrong with just playing the world you like? I cannot understand this at all it seems. And as the error must lie with me, I stop trying to fight this phenomenon.

I was playing in the world I liked, which happened to be one of my own creation in that case.  But playing in a world created for me?  Nothing wrong with that either, or course!  I do it all the time.  Tekumel, BattleTech, I could name more.  But conversely, why are you so hung up of this point?  It seems odd to me to rail against people using their imaginations to find the things that they enjoy in this most imaginative of hobbies.

-TGA

To contribute something substantial, here is how we have done it:

1) I did not aim for genre purity, nor old school purity (is old school a genre or an approach? Hmmmm...) While focus is good, reductionist approaches that try to lay down exact boundaries end up being more trouble than they are worth - not to mention encouraging petty sophistry. So the approach was fairly eclectic, accommodating S&S, weird fantasy, planetary romance, traditional D&D and even a few "off" elements (how did some ideas in the surreal duels from Revolutionary Girl Utena end up in the campaign? Because they did, although Utena is pretty much anti-S&S, and utterly divorced from my usual likes - but the imagery and structure of those swordfighting vids became quite inspiring for some otherworldly elements)

2) There was a solid framework to build on in the Wilderlands model. This has had an influence on not only the way to build and manage the environment, but the rules solutions as well. I started from my WL campaigns, and thought about how it may be done differently - with less elfie-welfie, quarter-sized maps (on a 20 km per hex scale, though), and a sort of 20th century avant-garde feel.

3) I did not compromise D&D's gameplay to reach the ideal type of a S&S story (again, for most people, this ends up being "Conan", and S&S is more than that); rather, I went the other way to fit S&S elements, ingredients and concepts into D&D gameplay. The result was a game that was generally very accessible and straightforward, with very fluid transitions between adventure types (dungeoneering, complex problem-solving in open-ended scenarios, city investigation/intrigue, hex-crawling [mostly island-hopping] and extra-planar). Someone could have jumped right in with some D&D experience.

4) Concrete rules changes: a lot of it is summed up in Sword&Magic: Adventures on Fomalhaut, so highlights only where I departed from D&D's base assumptions, partly by taking the WL rules additions to their logical conclusions:

• human racial/cultural groups (horse nomads, amazons, scheming decadents etc.) instead of demi-humans: this pretty much removed the tolkienisms from the game
• starting characters at 3rd level, allowing characters to use any skill their class would have access to: resulting in well-rounded, competent individuals, who are, OTOH, not invulnerable even after they gain a few levels. This removes the "low level D&D" segment of the gameplay, which can be very entertaining, but not what I was shooting for.
• fighter subtypes with S&S-centric options (Fighters, Archers, Sailors, Amazons and Barbarians).
• the Illusionist class as a legitimately powerful option. Post-1e D&D has dropped them in favour of specialist Wizards, removing a very S&S-appropriate character type. Here, they shine, and their illusions are actually scarily effective.
• divorcing religion from the Cleric class. This is pretty big, and was actually inspired in part by RQ in addition to the WL. Varying levels of character commitment to eccentric and fallible faiths, appropriate rewards and priests who are members of the other classes loosens a lot of the "wandering Christian preacher" associations while retaining the Cleric as a viable option. The logical step to achieve a "purist" S&S variant might have been to do away with the Cleric entirely - if I had to remake D&D from the ground up, I would do that - but I did not want that.
• XP rules: using a variant of Arneson's XP for spent gp rules, rewarding squandering money in hedonistic excess went pretty good.
• In general, the importance of PC wealth was de-emphasised. Sometimes, they were filthily rich and could buy themselves potent magic items; at other times, they were penniless and had to live by their wits alone. The decision to start all beginning characters with basic necessities + 2d6*10 gp worth of equipment regardless of level (with the potential for some interesting extra on higher levels), and to create adventures that weren't reliant on gear, was an important, although initially unconscious way to achieve my goals.
  

All in all, though, I must once again say, the goal was not to "un-D&D" D&D to be all S&S all the time; rather, to build on D&D's strengths to achieve a suitable S&S experience. And I think we have succeeded pretty well.

Quote from: The_Shadow;128254I'm an S&S type guy myself, but what I don't agree with is putting it under a glass bowl, which in practice means hewing too close to Howard and refusing to deviate. It should be a living thing, and open to development and personal touches. Which is actually what happened early on in rpgs, with D&D, Stormbringer and others taking a lot of S&S tropes without feeling the need to "stay true to the genre".

So my home-brew setting designed for BRP has zero Tolkien and a lot of standard S&S elements, but I never say "this is a sword and sorcery world". I do make sure I mention to new players that there are no paladins, no elves or dwarves, and no good vs evil...although there are a lot of creepy cults.

Yeah, my secondary ruleset is pretty much built to take on this vibe.  

• All human racial types,

• Very Bronze age (weapons ARE Bronze, with dulling rules, as steel is mysterious and rare).

• The temples are actually competing prophets of the gods (The Auger of the Serpent, the Profound Man, The Furies of the Flame, or the Speaker of the Dead).

• Low HP and made to run fast. (Fighting men start with 4-10HP, gain 2-5 per level after, and they are the highest.)

• Specifically influenced by some of the authors mentioned, there is a strength needed to use certain weapons...

Wealth and the need for it and the scarcity of it has been emphasized.  Beginning characters often are undersupplied, and much of the world is barey sustaining themselves.

I did not mention to my early playtests about the S&S, just the bronze age.  It is interesting that the first guy to run a rogue said he felt like the Grey Mouser.

Differentiation: Enlightened Roleplaying is on the left. Pure Lit-Emu to the right. 4e/DitV and other abominations are a deep hole. When enlightened RPG'ing is looked at from far away, it looks like lit-emu. If looked to close at, it looks like an abomination.

In the spirit of rpg.net, have a "WTF?" point, Settembrini.

Quote from: Melan;4635641) I did not aim for genre purity, nor old school purity (is old school a genre or an approach? Hmmmm...) While focus is good, reductionist approaches that try to lay down exact boundaries end up being more trouble than they are worth - not to mention encouraging petty sophistry. So the approach was fairly eclectic, accommodating S&S, weird fantasy, planetary romance, traditional D&D and even a few "off" elements (how did some ideas in the surreal duels from Revolutionary Girl Utena end up in the campaign? Because they did, although Utena is pretty much anti-S&S, and utterly divorced from my usual likes - but the imagery and structure of those swordfighting vids became quite inspiring for some otherworldly elements)

I think that your point about genetic purity is a good one.  I would not want to imply that I think that if you want to have a S&S vibe in your game that it requires any kind of genre purity.  I think that it is a matter of measure.  Even my games that shoot for a strong S&S feel have all sorts of other personal touches, inside jokes between my players and I, and influences.  Most of the fantasy games that I have enjoyed have been a healthy mixture of different ideas and tastes.

I think that purity tests are a pretty lame concept for this hobby.

Quote from: Melan;4635643) I did not compromise D&D's gameplay to reach the ideal type of a S&S story (again, for most people, this ends up being "Conan", and S&S is more than that); rather, I went the other way to fit S&S elements, ingredients and concepts into D&D gameplay. The result was a game that was generally very accessible and straightforward, with very fluid transitions between adventure types (dungeoneering, complex problem-solving in open-ended scenarios, city investigation/intrigue, hex-crawling [mostly island-hopping] and extra-planar). Someone could have jumped right in with some D&D experience.

I concur in that I started with D&D at the base of the game that I wanted to run, and instead focused on adding the elements into gameplay, as you said.  I did use what is my experience is a more flexible version of D&D (OD&D clone) because I wanted to houserule quite a bit, but not specifically for any genre feel, but more on personal preferences - so a slightly re-imagined thief class, some changes to beginning hit points, an initiative system, etc.

Quote from: Melan;463564

• starting characters at 3rd level, allowing characters to use any skill their class would have access to: resulting in well-rounded, competent individuals, who are, OTOH, not invulnerable even after they gain a few levels. This removes the "low level D&D" segment of the gameplay, which can be very entertaining, but not what I was shooting for.

I handled this issue by giving 1st level characters max hitpoints and then randomizing from that point forward.  In hindsight and in light of coming across the suggestion of starting players out at 3rd level in several places since, I would seriously consider that as an alternative.  My main goal was to make the beginning characters a little tougher on average than the typical D&D beginners.  I would be concerned that the characters would get too tough pretty quickly for most low-level challenges.  And since my idea was to focus on human opponents and unique "horrors" as opponents, this could be an issue.  What was your experience with the PC power curve starting at 3rd level?  What kind of challenges did you use at the higher levels?

Quote from: Melan;463564

• divorcing religion from the Cleric class. This is pretty big, and was actually inspired in part by RQ in addition to the WL. Varying levels of character commitment to eccentric and fallible faiths, appropriate rewards and priests who are members of the other classes loosens a lot of the "wandering Christian preacher" associations while retaining the Cleric as a viable option. The logical step to achieve a "purist" S&S variant might have been to do away with the Cleric entirely - if I had to remake D&D from the ground up, I would do that - but I did not want that.

I struggled with that too.  In the end I just played the cleric class straight.  In practice there were some awkward interactions between the system and the world, like just how does a detect evil spell work in a situation without traditional defined D&D alignment.  This required some interpretation, and I would rethink it before playing a similar game in the future.  But the cleric class itself was not an issue for me.

Quote from: Melan;463564

• XP rules: using a variant of Arneson's XP for spent gp rules, rewarding squandering money in hedonistic excess went pretty good.

I opted for (as it turned out) the very clumsy mechanic cribbed from D20 Conan in which the players blew half their treasure between adventures on stuff (wine, women, and song or donations to the temple or whatever).  It kinda sounded ok on paper but never worked out well.  The players kinda resented the ham-handed effect, and it didn't really accomplish my goal of creating the feel of hard-luck adventuring.  I think that the Arneson xp approach would be a much, much better way to handle it and empower the players to make their own choices.

Quote from: Melan;463564

• In general, the importance of PC wealth was de-emphasised. Sometimes, they were filthily rich and could buy themselves potent magic items; at other times, they were penniless and had to live by their wits alone. The decision to start all beginning characters with basic necessities + 2d6*10 gp worth of equipment regardless of level (with the potential for some interesting extra on higher levels), and to create adventures that weren't reliant on gear, was an important, although initially unconscious way to achieve my goals.

That is the feel I wanted to, and barring very deterministic approaches (I recall the old TSR Conan game had a table pick system that players choose from at the beginning of each adventure for the sum total of their worldly possessions), I think your way to accomplish that was a good one.

Quote from: Melan;463564All in all, though, I must once again say, the goal was not to "un-D&D" D&D to be all S&S all the time; rather, to build on D&D's strengths to achieve a suitable S&S experience. And I think we have succeeded pretty well.

All I can say is that your campaign looked freakin' awesome, and I wish that I didn't live like 5000 miles away from it...

-TGA

Quote from: LordVreeg;463594Yeah, my secondary ruleset is pretty much built to take on this vibe.  

• All human racial types,

• Very Bronze age (weapons ARE Bronze, with dulling rules, as steel is mysterious and rare).

• The temples are actually competing prophets of the gods (The Auger of the Serpent, the Profound Man, The Furies of the Flame, or the Speaker of the Dead).

• Low HP and made to run fast. (Fighting men start with 4-10HP, gain 2-5 per level after, and they are the highest.)

• Specifically influenced by some of the authors mentioned, there is a strength needed to use certain weapons...

Wealth and the need for it and the scarcity of it has been emphasized.  Beginning characters often are undersupplied, and much of the world is barey sustaining themselves.

I did not mention to my early playtests about the S&S, just the bronze age.  It is interesting that the first guy to run a rogue said he felt like the Grey Mouser.

Sounds like some good stuff!  And since my *other* fantasy itch yet to be scratched is Bronze Age fantasy...consider some of these ideas snagged!  

How would you describe your ideas on Bronze Age fantasy?  How would they differ from Sword & Sorcery?  I have some thoughts on the matter and would like to hear your point of view.

For one, I think that I would say that it is more about mythic heroism rather than the anti-hero of S&S.  More Gilgamesh than Grey Mouser.  So the heroes would be more likely representing civilization pushing out against the darkness of the unknown rather than pursuing mercenary interests.

-TGA

Quote from: Settembrini;463611Differentiation: Enlightened Roleplaying is on the left. Pure Lit-Emu to the right. 4e/DitV and other abominations are a deep hole. When enlightened RPG'ing is looked at from far away, it looks like lit-emu. If looked to close at, it looks like an abomination.

I see...is the implication that even though my game had some similarities to what you call Enlightened Roleplaying it is still an abomination on closer examination because it did not fit your idea of gaming purity?  If so, I think that it an uncharitable characterization.  


-TGA

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;463653I see...is the implication that even though my game had some similarities to what you call Enlightened Roleplaying it is still an abomination on closer examination because it did not fit your idea of gaming purity?  If so, I think that it an uncharitable characterization.  


-TGA

I was no timplying anything re: your gaming. I think I have a handle on how some people run their stuff, but currently would not feel able to categorize your style from afar. I feel secure in saying Melan is one of the most enlightened RPG-persons around the web.

What I can say is that absolutes are unstable, but "enlightened" is different from middle ground/balanced, although it incorporates elements of everything, the matter of degree and point of including something of everything is hugely different from "middle ground" rhetoric.

And this will the last thing I say on this thread. My stakes in "S&S or not" are so low, I feel a little ashamed that I wasted anybody's time on a subject that is of so low interest to myself. Apologies.

Quote from: Settembrini;463661I was no timplying anything re: your gaming. I think I have a handle on how some people run their stuff, but currently would not feel able to categorize your style from afar.

I sincerely thank you for that courtesy, Sett.  I may have misread the point your were making in that post.

Quote from: Settembrini;463661I feel secure in saying Melan is one of the most enlightened RPG-persons around the web.

On this point we can agree.  I consistently find that Melan's points are very valuable and thought provoking for me.

Quote from: Settembrini;463661What I can say is that absolutes are unstable, but "enlightened" is different from middle ground/balanced, although it incorporates elements of everything, the matter of degree and point of including something of everything is hugely different from "middle ground" rhetoric.

This is an interesting statement.  I realize that you have decided to bow out of this thread, but it is I am interested in what you mean by this - I think I get your point and am inclined to agree if I am reading it right.  Perhaps we can talk about it another time.

Quote from: Settembrini;463661And this will the last thing I say on this thread. My stakes in "S&S or not" are so low, I feel a little ashamed that I wasted anybody's time on a subject that is of so low interest to myself. Apologies.

Understood.  No apologies necessary.  It wasn't a waste of time in my book.


-TGA

Quote from: Settembrini;463525I dunno. I woul dlike to be convinced by the very respected Good Assyrian. But when I read that the conscious lit-emu approach resulted in a City without a name or map, but a lot of consciously inserted themes and morality plays, I wonder if this is what I would like to participate in as a player.
Now Melan, he's got his world named, mapped and everything else. Also, Gygax et al.
But undefined cities and "themes". Sorry dude, I might be misreading you, or suffer from paranoia. But if somebody asked me about the evils lit-emu mindset potentially brings to GMing, I feel inclined to point right here then.

What is fucking wrong with just playing the world you like? I cannot understand this at all it seems. And as the error must lie with me, I stop trying to fight this phenomenon.

The way I see it playing "Swords & Sorcery" in practice meas "setting the campaign in the kind of world that Swords & Sorcery tends to depict." So if you play a campaign set in Nehwon you are going to tend to have more of a Swords & Sorcery game than if you play one set in Krynn.

So if we have two different campaign settings and,

Setting A contains

An alliance between the Good peoples.
Kings ruling with divine right
Benevolent wizardly advisors
A world-wide secret society protecting the innocent from darkness
Magic that nurtures and shields a green and pleasant land
Wise and friendly dragons

and Setting B contains

Whores
Opium Dens
Wizards whose mind and body are deformed by magic
Decadent cities where money is king
Corrupt politicians
Mutants and man-apes

If you are playing in Setting B you probably already have more of a Swords & Sorcery setting and whether you're using D&D or Runequest for your rules is secondary. Obviously the boundaries are not well defined and Middle-Earth has Grima, a corrupt politician just as Hyboria has Epimetrius, a wise wizard. But if you look what is prominent in a setting, or in RPG terms, what the PCs are likely to run into, it's not that hard to get the sense of things. What's in the campaign's "Monster Manual" so to speak has a lot to say about it.

But I do think worlds can contain "themes" in a sense and remain perfectly playable RPGs. If every NPC in a position of political power is a motherfucker then "authority always corrupts" is a theme. If the rightful heir to a throne always has what it takes to rule then "the divine right of kings" is a theme. Even if you have "most" and "usually" instead of "every" and "always" you still have a theme.

It can also work like this - If you think S&S is characterized by "no matter how tough you are death still comes cheap" you can use rules where the best fighter is 3 times as good as the average fighter and being outnumbered causes mad penalties while if you think it is characterized by "skill at arms is paramount" you can use rules where the best fighter is 20 times as good as the average one and being outnumbered by weaker foes is less dangerous than meeting one foe above your skill. Or if you think it is characterized by "if you come at the king you best not miss" you could give a huge edge to the master but use an over the top critical chart because you never know.

Remember that plenty of people throughout history are of the opinion that this world we are in ourselves where we eat fries and watch TV is governed by providence or karma as well so that's a "theme" you arguably have in the real world and I don't think it's equivalent to original sin if you have something going on in the rules that is not purely wargame derived or grounded in physical laws.

Quote from: Settembrini;463661And this will the last thing I say on this thread. My stakes in "S&S or not" are so low, I feel a little ashamed that I wasted anybody's time on a subject that is of so low interest to myself. Apologies.

That's fine. For what it's worth I basically agree with the idea from the other thread that it's about contents as opposed to about form or structure. But I do think you veer wildly into paranoia about "lit-emu" when most players are basically talking about content already.
(In the interest of transparency, I mostly run D&D. I also like Runequest and have had good success with the S&S mode with both.)

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;463651Sounds like some good stuff!  And since my *other* fantasy itch yet to be scratched is Bronze Age fantasy...consider some of these ideas snagged!  

How would you describe your ideas on Bronze Age fantasy?  How would they differ from Sword & Sorcery?  I have some thoughts on the matter and would like to hear your point of view.

For one, I think that I would say that it is more about mythic heroism rather than the anti-hero of S&S.  More Gilgamesh than Grey Mouser.  So the heroes would be more likely representing civilization pushing out against the darkness of the unknown rather than pursuing mercenary interests.

-TGA

I am not sure how much of a difference there is; I think the Bronze Age stuff can be a subset of S&S.  BuT I certainly agree that it is more mythic, though so far at the lower levels, the difficulty attaining wealth has surprised some of the players.  
There is a difference in that I enjoy having priests of the various cults as PCs, as well as scholars using magical theorems.  But the themes of vast lands, ancient civilizations, strange beliefs, wierd rituals, and the opinioon that the gods have a hand in everything are pretty well in the space shared of a Venn Diagram...

Quote from: LordVreeg;463809I am not sure how much of a difference there is; I think the Bronze Age stuff can be a subset of S&S.  BuT I certainly agree that it is more mythic, though so far at the lower levels, the difficulty attaining wealth has surprised some of the players.  
There is a difference in that I enjoy having priests of the various cults as PCs, as well as scholars using magical theorems.  But the themes of vast lands, ancient civilizations, strange beliefs, wierd rituals, and the opinioon that the gods have a hand in everything are pretty well in the space shared of a Venn Diagram...

I agree with you on the idea of Bronze Age fantasy as a subset of S&S and sharing some similarities.  I was so excited by the prospect of discussing Bronze Age fantasy that I started a separate thread just to discuss it!  I noticed that there was a link already posted to a Bronze Age fantasy game of yours.  I have already taken a look at it for inspiration.  Great stuff!

I think where it would naturally diverge from the iconic S&S of Howard and Leiber is the issues of the prominence of magic (and PC magic users), divine magic, and the PCs' relationship to authority and society.  There is plenty of overlap on that Venn Diagram though - degenerate cultists who worship Serpent Men would totally sweet in both contexts for example!


-TGA