SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Which OSR Rule-set does Sword & Sorcery the Best?

Started by RPGPundit, January 04, 2016, 06:33:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

S'mon

#45
January 08, 2016, 04:47:12 AM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872502As for Moorcock, I'd debate that Elric is the closest to being an S&S hero, but fails one the minor technicality that everything he was doing was close to an epic fantasy tale from the reverse end. Everything else is too Epic Fantasy for S&S.

To me.  YMMV.

If you're going to exclude seminal S&S works for not fitting your definition, it's not much of a definition.

Vance's Dying Earth also does not fit your definition re magic, as noted above.

I think the big difference is that Tolkien/Donaldson etc high/epic fantasy has a sense of divine providence, whereas S&S takes place in a largely meaningless and chaotic universe. If it has any morality, it tends to be "Neutrality/Balance is better than either Law or Chaos" - whereas high fantasy is about seeking to restore the natural just order (Law/Good) in the face of corruption/Evil/Chaos.

Christopher Brady

#46
January 08, 2016, 08:17:38 AM
Quote from: S'mon;872537If you're going to exclude seminal S&S works for not fitting your definition, it's not much of a definition.

Moorcock is considered and S&S writer, Corum and Hawkmoon are too grand a scale for it.

Quote from: S'mon;872537Vance's Dying Earth also does not fit your definition re magic, as noted above.

You're right it doesn't, and personally, I've never heard of the Dying Earth series to be qualified as S&S by anyone else before.

And Vancian Magic doesn't not work like D&D's, or so I've been bashed over the head with numerous times over the years.

Quote from: S'mon;872537I think the big difference is that Tolkien/Donaldson etc high/epic fantasy has a sense of divine providence, whereas S&S takes place in a largely meaningless and chaotic universe. If it has any morality, it tends to be "Neutrality/Balance is better than either Law or Chaos" - whereas high fantasy is about seeking to restore the natural just order (Law/Good) in the face of corruption/Evil/Chaos.

I believe it's an 'uncaring universe', which I lumped in with my no. 2, personal stories often don't care about good or evil on a grand scale, and often it doesn't matter past what the motivations of the hero(ine.)

I'm not saying my definitions are right, just that it's what I use.  And for me, it works quite well.
"And now, my friends, a Dragon\'s toast!  To life\'s little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

S'mon

#47
January 08, 2016, 08:36:57 AM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872555I'm not saying my definitions are right, just that it's what I use.  And for me, it works quite well.

It works well for you to exclude Moorcock's Eternal Champion and Vance's Dying Earth from your definition of S&S? What do you use your definition for, then?

Christopher Brady

#48
January 08, 2016, 09:48:16 AM
Quote from: S'mon;872558It works well for you to exclude Moorcock's Eternal Champion and Vance's Dying Earth from your definition of S&S? What do you use your definition for, then?

Conan, Fafrd and The Grey Mouser, Jiriel of Jory, Imaro, Black Company, Frank Frazetta's Death Dealer...

Plenty of other things that fall more easily into the same definition.

Moorcock and Vance are not be all and end all, not sure why it upsets you.
"And now, my friends, a Dragon\'s toast!  To life\'s little blessings:  wars, plagues and all forms of evil.  Their presence keeps us alert --- and their absence makes us grateful." -T.A. Barron[/SIZE]

TristramEvans

#49
January 08, 2016, 11:40:33 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;871984In your opinion?

Dungeons & Dragons :P

S'mon

#50
January 08, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872567Conan, Fafrd and The Grey Mouser, Jiriel of Jory, Imaro, Black Company, Frank Frazetta's Death Dealer...

Plenty of other things that fall more easily into the same definition.

Moorcock and Vance are not be all and end all, not sure why it upsets you.

I'm not upset, but Howard Leiber Vance and Moorcock are the holy quaternity of S&S, it seems weird to exclude half of them. Your examples are S&S too (AFAIK - not read Imaro or Black Company), but Jirel is pretty obscure compared to Elric.

AsenRG

#52
January 08, 2016, 06:02:27 PM Last Edit: January 09, 2016, 12:26:32 PM by AsenRG
Quote from: markfitz;872094Yeah there may actually be no "hornet's nest" on this, just people either saying they agree, or "sure, if you want". I'm curious though. Can the OSR umbrella be expanded to include other older games like Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, and RuneQuest? Or is it too tied in the common imagination to D&D and its derivatives?
To me, they are OSR already, but YMMV:). For that matter, I consider 5e to be in the same general group as well, since it's also reinventing the whee...sorry, the supposed feel of old school games;).

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;872605Any opinions on ZeFRs (the TSR Conan clone): https://sites.google.com/site/zefrsrpg/?
Ran it once, impressions were kinda mixed although I like some of the system's concepts.
What Do You Do In Tekumel? See examples!
"Life is not fair. If the campaign setting is somewhat like life then the setting also is sometimes not fair." - Bren

TristramEvans

#53
January 08, 2016, 06:43:20 PM
Quote from: markfitz;872075Well I stand by my claim that RQ6 is an OSR game ... Any takers?

It's way too good for that

Spinachcat

#54
January 08, 2016, 07:17:11 PM
Quote from: Phillip;872500it meant simply what it says: got swords, got sorcery, mix violently.

I love that definition!

crkrueger

#55
January 08, 2016, 07:36:41 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872482Not entirely, there are three major tenets that I've seen held to the genre (Unless you have to qualify that it has to be fantasy, then it's four.)

First:  The Hero(ine)s are broadly skilled and capable.

Second:  The adventures/stories are more 'personal'.  Often dealing with local threats at best, or looking for a place to get more loot to live.  Very rarely will they reach a national level of danger.

Third:  Magic is seen as alien, evil and corrupting.  Whether it is or isn't doesn't matter, it's not meant for the hands of mortals, and those who wield are either evil, shunned and/or feared.

If you got all these elements, there's a good chance you're writing/running in the S&S genre.

And for ME, 1&3 is what disqualifies any D&D system, because magic is both assumed, and players are forced into tiny niches making players form into a group to cover missing elements.

Well, with certain caveats.   The differences between Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser can easily be described by classes, as arguably could Howard's "Barbarians, Wizards and Everyone Else".  You're right though in that Niche Protection doesn't scream Sword and Sorcery.

AD&D needs a little work for S&S, more like DCC, Dark Sun, or AS&SH.  OD&D, where everything is fast and loose works well, as there's not enough mechanically to interfere with the genre conceits.   Any flavor of officially published TSR or WotC D&D out of the box is rough to sell as a S&S-ready setting, unless you're specifically looking at the Dark Sun setting or Lankhmar.

There's also #4
The Heroes are Human and most of the time, their enemies are too.
Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use. - Estar

Yes, Sean Connery\'s thumb does indeed do megadamage. - Spinachcat

Isuldur is a badass because he stopped Sauron with a broken sword, but Iluvatar is the badass because he stopped Sauron with a hobbit. -Malleus Arianorum

"Tangency Edition" D&D would have no classes or races, but 17 genders to choose from. -TristramEvans

TristramEvans

#56
January 09, 2016, 01:15:38 AM
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;872605Any opinions on ZeFRs (the TSR Conan clone): https://sites.google.com/site/zefrsrpg/?

I rather like it, but it''s kinda the "lesser" of the trilogy of big colour chart games that came out around that time, under MSH (FASERIP) and that edition of Gamma World (2nd or 3rd?). In the end I'd simply rather use FASERIP.

Phillip

#57
January 10, 2016, 05:38:52 PM
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872482And for ME, 1&3 is what disqualifies any D&D system, because magic is both assumed, and players are forced into tiny niches making players form into a group to cover missing elements.
In the old D&D with which I'm acquainted, a swordsman can do anything except what's peculiar to the sorcerer.  The latter can be limited to NPC status if one wishes.
And we are here as on a darkling plain  ~ Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, ~ Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Phillip

#58
January 10, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
Quote from: S'mon;872537I think the big difference is that Tolkien/Donaldson etc high/epic fantasy has a sense of divine providence, whereas S&S takes place in a largely meaningless and chaotic universe. If it has any morality, it tends to be "Neutrality/Balance is better than either Law or Chaos" - whereas high fantasy is about seeking to restore the natural just order (Law/Good) in the face of corruption/Evil/Chaos.
"Morally gray protagonists and straightforward references to sex" is a phrase that comes to mind from a review of Swords and Deviltry.
And we are here as on a darkling plain  ~ Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, ~ Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Phillip

#59
January 10, 2016, 06:07:05 PM
Maybe one touchstone for the attitude is that "high fantasy" evokes more the ethos and flavor of the medieval romance, whereas "sword & sorcery" harks back more to Nordic Sagas and Classical Greek heroic cycles, and so on. Where there is a grand finale, it may well be tragic (which is not to be expected in works in the Lord of the Rings vein); but the "S&S" genre is mainly associated with endless serials rather than well-rounded (if multi-volume) novels.
And we are here as on a darkling plain  ~ Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, ~ Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions