TheRPGSite

In your opinion?

Can I ask for a clarification?

What kind of Sword and Sorcery?  Are we talking the short stories by Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, Karl Edward Wagner et al?  Or are we talking about the various comics/magazines of the 70's to 80's, like The Savage Sword of Conan, Red Sonja, Mike Grell's Warlord, Klaw the Barbarian and the rest of them?

They're definitely two different 'tones' to the same genre, in my opinion.

Quote from: RPGPundit;871984In your opinion?

Not really a permissable answer, but frankly I'm finding my 5e Wilderlands game with mostly Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue PCs captures exactly the Swords & Sorcery feel I like. The 5e combat is vastly more visceral-S&S in feel than any other version of D&D I've seen. I think this is because of Bounded Accuracy, there is a lot of hacking and splattering and very little of old-D&D's frequent whiffing. It's really amazing to me how they achieved such a big change in feel with just a few rules changes. I do have one major houserule though that supports the feel: negative hit points, you die at negative max hp. I've recently been running a 5e game with the regular hp rules, and all that popping up again definitely isn't very S&S at all.

Crypts & Things


(And I don't see how constantly hitting in combat but inflating everything's hit point totals to compensate in 5e is more swords & sorcery or "visceral".)

Quote from: JeremyR;871997Crypts & Things

Ditto.

People tend to define the genre with different emphases, so that's going to muddy the waters here. There's a ton of source material. Anyway, I like AS&SH, billed as "Swords, Sorcery and Weird Fantasy," but I also think AD&D can do Swords & Sorcery just fine depending on the setting and adventures. I have not read Crypts and Things, but it sounds like a good OD&D-based choice.

AS&SH for me, but like Chainsaw says you can get a S&S feel out of O/AD&D by clipping out the medieval/Tolkien elements.

Just about any edition of Runequest or Stormbringer. I favor RQ6.

If OSR = TSR D&D-based, probably Crypts & Things, but I don't own it.

Mongoose (d20) Conan did a great job too, IMHO.

Yep, RuneQuest or Stormbringer.

RuneQuest or Stormbringer for me as well.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;871991What kind of Sword and Sorcery?  Are we talking the short stories by Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, Karl Edward Wagner et al?  Or are we talking about the various comics/magazines of the 70's to 80's, like The Savage Sword of Conan, Red Sonja, Mike Grell's Warlord, Klaw the Barbarian and the rest of them?

Which game would you use for which?

I'd use Crypts &Things for Leiber, Howard, Wagner (and plain AD&D for pastiche like the Conan the Destroyer movie - if there ever was a movie plot that feels like a typical D&D session of its time it's this).
Or Zenobia but that one isn't "OSR".

Crimson Blades or Elric! for Eternal Champion style adventures.

Warlord cries out for Fantastic Heroes & Witchery.

And I don't know why but Searchers of the Unknown feels like Dying Earth for me - even in its French La Lune et Douze Lotus incarnation which would suit Howard's Conan equally well, as well as probably Harold Lamb's Khlit the Cossack.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;872043Which game would you use for which?

That's a very good question.  The issue I have is that if absolutely nothing else, D&D and it's derivatives require healing magic at the bare minimum, unless you're willing to lose weeks of time in game (which I want to stress is perfectly fine.)  There's also the basic conceit of every class is a specialist, and that S&S heroes are not, they have a broad range of skills.

Now, personally, if I have to use an old game for REH, Ashton Clark, Andre Norton style, I'd probably go with a version Runequest (MRQ is the version I know best, sadly, don't judge me too harshly, I'm Canadian, we didn't get the good stuff from the Old Country.)  Probably houserule that mutherfocker to DEATH, like removing magic from the hands of Players.

As for Savage Sword of Conan, Red Sonja, Warlord and all the other mags that came out...  That's a tough one.  Mook rules didn't really exist as a codified system, and systems of handling multiple opponents were more or less frowned on over here at the time, so I don't know of any game that would do the more cinematic style action.  So you got me there.

DCC, Epees&Sorcellerie, Runequest 6th or Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane, IMO. Though nearly all of these require forbidding wizards.
Or just use Barbarians of Lemuria, which is actually almost as old-school as it gets.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;872043Which game would you use for which?

I'd use Crypts &Things for Leiber, Howard, Wagner (and plain AD&D for pastiche like the Conan the Destroyer movie - if there ever was a movie plot that feels like a typical D&D session of its time it's this).

For hardcore Howard (Kull/Conan) I think Crypts & Things is a good option. It doesn't feel particularly Leiberesque to me. With Nehwon's lightning bolt & magic missile spamming wizards, ice gnomes & invisibles etc, I think a regular D&D adaptation minus elves dwarves & halflings is probably best. I ran TSR's 1e AD&D Lankhmar setting, and that worked fine.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872044That's a very good question.  The issue I have is that if absolutely nothing else, D&D and it's derivatives require healing magic at the bare minimum, unless you're willing to lose weeks of time in game (which I want to stress is perfectly fine.)  There's also the basic conceit of every class is a specialist, and that S&S heroes are not, they have a broad range of skills.

5e has fast hp recovery. I gave my 5e PCs Proficiency in all their class skills, which solved the broad competency issue. Pre-3e D&D with no skills system you can just say the PCs are broadly competent, so I don't see that as a big issue.

Biggest problem with pre-4e D&D is that very low level PCs are so weak (also the pre-3e Thief skill % system encourages an impression of incompetence if not handled well by the GM). For a classic S&S feel starting your Fighting Men at 3rd level/4000 XP is probably best, and increase the rate of healing, eg 1/level/day or more.

I was trying to avoid 5e, S'mon.  Simply because I don't think it qualifies for the silly OSR label, it's got too much 'new' stuff, so I'm told.

I must agree with previous posters and say RuneQuest is a lock for this. Broadly skilled characters who aren't locked into a class? Got it. Visceral bloody combat? Check. I'd run it with RQ6, as this version has as much in common with classic RuneQuest as any OSR D&D has with whichever version it's based off. Set Magic Point regeneration to 1/week, but allow sacrifices to accumulate MPs, as well as possibly sacred locations or alignments of the moon and so on. No Theism; the gods don't care. Most "Sorcerers" use Folk Magic and trickery. Sorcery gained by pacting with unholy entities, or Magic items. Use the Mysticism rules not only for Eastern Mystics but also for preternaturally physically skilled barbarians and such. That way you can have specimens like Conan who can Augment Athletics, Acrobatics, Willpower, or Endurance, and Increase Action Points or Hit Points, Invoke Denial Food, Increase Healing Rate, Invoke Aura of Intimidation, etc to allow them to fight off hordes of foes and survive desert wandering beyond the capabilities of mere mortals. I let my Mystics regenerate Magic Points by Mediating (1/hour), but a Barbarian could do this by Carousing. Done.

The question is, is RuneQuest OSR? I know it doesn't get classed with the OSR, but it's a pretty Old School game, just not D&D. In terms of emulating Swords and Sorcery, I think it works a hell of a lot better than D&D and its derivatives. They seem far more attuned to, well, D&D fantasy, either Old School dungeon crawling or Middle School High Fantasy. Why keep trying to hammer their square peg into the round hole of S&S when there's a great ruleset out there for just that?

My understanding was that Pundit wasn't asking which vintage games from the 70s and 80s do S&S well, but which new OSR games do it well. Maybe he can clarify.

Well I stand by my claim that RQ6 is an OSR game ... Any takers?

Quote from: markfitz;872075Well I stand by my claim that RQ6 is an OSR game ... Any takers?

To be clear, I wasn't reponding to you specifically.

Quote from: Chainsaw;872078To be clear, I wasn't reponding to you specifically.

Yeah sorry Chainsaw, I got that. I'm interested in stirring up the hornet's nest on "who gets to be OSR", specifically because I really believe that S&S and D&D are actually a bad fit. Just bouncing off your comment to state that clearly.

Quote from: markfitz;872079Yeah sorry Chainsaw, I got that. I'm interested in stirring up the hornet's nest on "who gets to be OSR", specifically because I really believe that S&S and D&D are actually a bad fit. Just bouncing off your comment to state that clearly.

OK, cool. :cool:

Quote from: markfitz;872075Well I stand by my claim that RQ6 is an OSR game ... Any takers?

I'll take it, because I agree.

Quote from: Simlasa;872083I'll take it, because I agree.

Yeah 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?

Quote from: JeremyR;871997Crypts & Things

Another vote here, especially with the new version coming.

Of course my own game below would be a good fit too, except it is not intended for a single genre, but tries to be usable for many genres.

I will be using Earthdawn 4, and stealing Morale, Reaction Checks, Hex-crawl rules, and other Procedural Generation methods from "Delving Deeper", the Alexandrian blog, & the first few D&D incarnations. Plus adding my own mass-combat rules that work seemlessly with normal combat.

I've already run Hommlet with ED3 & some of the above, and the improvements in ED4 make me really look forward to running other old-school and OSR modules.

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?

I don't find it useful, personally, to include RQ in OSR. There are ideological/historical reasons to include or exclude it, and then probably a bunch of reasons to argue over whether a given RQ edition/derivative is or isn't old-school. But to avoid that, and for the sake of utility, I'm happy to just think of D&D derivatives as OSR.

As you can see, though, nobody is calling foul on suggesting RQ/BRP, because it's clear where the idea is coming from and it really isn't disrupting the thread.

I will say though in response to one of your posts above that I believe a game could be close enough to D&D to fall uncontroversially under the OSR moniker, and also be a good fit for S&S.

Quote from: Arminius;872103I don't find it useful, personally, to include RQ in OSR. There are ideological/historical reasons to include or exclude it, and then probably a bunch of reasons to argue over whether a given RQ edition/derivative is or isn't old-school. But to avoid that, and for the sake of utility, I'm happy to just think of D&D derivatives as OSR.

As you can see, though, nobody is calling foul on suggesting RQ/BRP, because it's clear where the idea is coming from and it really isn't disrupting the thread.

Yeah that's cool. I guess the argument is maybe material for a different thread! And I actually tend to agree with you. As it stands, OSR does seem to be confined to D&D/derivatives. That's where the renaissance made sense, as subsequent rulesets deviated from previous editions more, perhaps, than RQ did. Still, as you say it perhaps muddies the waters to expect disagreement.

Quote from: markfitz;872094Can 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?

For myself, I think it has more to do with HOW you play than WHAT you play. But some rules... including Classic Traveller, RQ and CoC promote (or get out of the way of) that style more than others do.
Then again, I was never a rabid fan of D&D or Mr. Gygax or any of that 'days of yore' stuff Geezer pumps out. I just know that the OSR label on stuff gives me a clue that I might like what's being sold.

If I had to pick a D&D-type game I'd pick DCC with the Tales of the Fallen Empire sourcebook... but that's surely influenced by my liking DCC and having both books at hand. Crypts & Things isn't something I've experienced.

I haven't played Crypts & Things so I can't comment on it.

FOR ME, I would go Stormbringer or OD&D/Swords & Wizardry: White Box. For whatever reason, MY VIEW of S&S seems to work great with OD&D.

I don't know why exactly, but Cleric/Fighter/Mage vs. the world of monsters works for what I imagine as S&S.

Quote from: markfitz;872079Yeah sorry Chainsaw, I got that. I'm interested in stirring up the hornet's nest on "who gets to be OSR", specifically because I really believe that S&S and D&D are actually a bad fit. Just bouncing off your comment to state that clearly.

I agree.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872052I was trying to avoid 5e, S'mon.  Simply because I don't think it qualifies for the silly OSR label, it's got too much 'new' stuff, so I'm told.

I run my online 5e Wilderlands game as an OSR game, with grognard Dragonsfoot players. It certainly can be OSR with minimal tweaking, the biggest thing for me was getting rid of the very new-school death saves and 'heal from zero' rules. But 5e can also be run to feel like 3e or even 4e, it really depends on how you approach it. My new tabletop 5e game uses a Paizo adventure & feels a lot like a slicker version of Pathfinder, for instance.

Quote from: S'mon;872155I run my online 5e Wilderlands game as an OSR game, with grognard Dragonsfoot players. It certainly can be OSR with minimal tweaking, the biggest thing for me was getting rid of the very new-school death saves and 'heal from zero' rules. But 5e can also be run to feel like 3e or even 4e, it really depends on how you approach it. My new tabletop 5e game uses a Paizo adventure & feels a lot like a slicker version of Pathfinder, for instance.

More power to you, dood!  You can make it work for you and your mates, that's seriously awesome.  Personally, I've been told otherwise, and I also have some personal ideas and conceits on what makes an S&S game/system.

Personally, I prefer BoL for my S&S needs, but this was a hypothetical so I gave what I thought. :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872204More power to you, dood!  You can make it work for you and your mates, that's seriously awesome.  Personally, I've been told otherwise, and I also have some personal ideas and conceits on what makes an S&S game/system.

Personally, I prefer BoL for my S&S needs, but this was a hypothetical so I gave what I thought. :)

I think a lot of it is what sort of S&S you're after. Personally Runequest doesn't feel S&S to me at all, it's much too realistic! For my tastes 5e does a great "Thongor of Lemuria" feel, and is pretty good at "Savage Sword of Conan" (Marvel Comics Conan).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872204and I also have some personal ideas and conceits on what makes an S&S game/system.

THIS x 1000.

Swords & Sorcery is a great genre name, but it lacks an universal definition that's easy enough to agree upon. It requires caveats to explain because even the so-called source material is wildly diverse.

For gritty, 'blow-by-breaking-bone-blow' style S&S (the sort one finds in REH's original stories), RuneQuest 6 is the way to go.  That is, if one wants detailed, gritty, vivid combat, and a variety of S&S appropriate magic systems (including 'Eastern' mysticism), then one should go with RQ6 IMO.

For fast-paced, 'mow-the-mooks-down' style S&S (the sort I associate with the Savage Sword of Conan comics, and perhaps Leiber's Lankhmar stories), I'd recommend Crypts and Things.  (Barbarians of Lemuria also would be good for this sort of S&S, but I prefer C&T as it is more familiar to me.)

Also: Call of Cthulhu with the Dreamlands supplement is a worthy option for 'weird fantasy' (e.g., CAS's Zothique and the like).

Chaosium RQ2, except it's not revival - it's pure old school, purer than any retroclone, without narr garbage like inflating hit points, Alignment or character classes. So sim it hurts, and RQs Pavis setting is hard core as Lhankmar or Purple Towns. I say fie and bah on OOC constructs. If you're gonna do sim, do it hard.

Quote from: Spinachcat;872299THIS x 1000.

Swords & Sorcery is a great genre name, but it lacks an universal definition that's easy enough to agree upon. It requires caveats to explain because even the so-called source material is wildly diverse.

Yeah S&S is really hard to nail down because any of the supposed conventions of the genre are regularly or ocassionally violated by stories accepted as part of the genre. I'm convinced that it's more a "feel" than anything.

Quote from: Arkansan;872479Yeah S&S is really hard to nail down because any of the supposed conventions of the genre are regularly or ocassionally violated by stories accepted as part of the genre. I'm convinced that it's more a "feel" than anything.

Not 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.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872482Third:  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.

I find this generalization, which is made quite often, a somewhat puzzling one given some of the fiction that traditionally is characterized as 'swords and sorcery' in nature.  

This would seem to disqualify, I think, Leiber's Lankhmar stories from qualifying as S&S, which seems strange.  The Gray Mouser is a former apprentice who casts magic from time to time.  Magic is dangerous and chaotic, sure, but it doesn't seem to make the Mouser 'evil' or 'corrupt.'

This generalization also disqualifies much of Moorcock's stuff (sure, the Lords of Chaos are bad, but there are other forms of magic that are used by some of Moorcock's 'goodish', or at least 'Lawful' or 'Balance-focused', characters as well).

Even in REH's stories, there are characters like Pelias, who are wizards and, while not exactly 'good guys' in the traditional sense (but who is in S&S?), certainly do not seem to be thoroughly 'evil' in nature.  (Pelias is just decadent.  He helps Conan a bit, albeit partially for selfish reasons.  But I could easily imagine him as a PC.)

Do Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" stories count of S&S?  Perhaps they're a borderline case.  Of course most of the main characters are magicians...

Quote from: Spinachcat;872299THIS x 1000.

Swords & Sorcery is a great genre name, but it lacks an universal definition that's easy enough to agree upon. It requires caveats to explain because even the so-called source material is wildly diverse.

Fritz Leiber used the term to distinguish his and RE Howard's tales -- which by analogy I would compare to "hard boiled detective" -- from the ilk of Tolkien's ("parlor mystery").  That's a matter of attitude, not particulars, and stories by other writers such as Dunsany, Eddison, Pratt and Vance might not seem so easily fit in one category or the other.

As Gygax used it, and as many others did back in the day, it meant simply what it says: got swords, got sorcery, mix violently.  "Heroic fantasy" was an interchangeable term.  "Epic fantasy"  (Tolkien, Brooks, Eddings, etc.) was widely seen as a subset.

Quote from: Akrasia;872495I find this generalization, which is made quite often, a somewhat puzzling one given some of the fiction that traditionally is characterized as 'swords and sorcery' in nature.  

This would seem to disqualify, I think, Leiber's Lankhmar stories from qualifying as S&S, which seems strange.  The Gray Mouser is a former apprentice who casts magic from time to time.  Magic is dangerous and chaotic, sure, but it doesn't seem to make the Mouser 'evil' or 'corrupt.'

This generalization also disqualifies much of Moorcock's stuff (sure, the Lords of Chaos are bad, but there are other forms of magic that are used by some of Moorcock's 'goodish', or at least 'Lawful' or 'Balance-focused', characters as well).

Even in REH's stories, there are characters like Pelias, who are wizards and, while not exactly 'good guys' in the traditional sense (but who is in S&S?), certainly do not seem to be thoroughly 'evil' in nature.  (Pelias is just decadent.  He helps Conan a bit, albeit partially for selfish reasons.  But I could easily imagine him as a PC.)

Do Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" stories count of S&S?  Perhaps they're a borderline case.  Of course most of the main characters are magicians...

You missed a part of my point, every 'NPC' character treats magic as if it's a thing of suspicion.  Whether it is worthy of it or not.  Magic could be completely harmless to the user, but if the average person thinks it's 'evil', it counts as part of #3.  And in Lankhmar, Magic is viewed with suspicion, if I remember correctly.

And Pelias was still viewed with suspicion, was he not?

As 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.

Quote from: markfitz;872079Yeah sorry Chainsaw, I got that. I'm interested in stirring up the hornet's nest on "who gets to be OSR", specifically because I really believe that S&S and D&D are actually a bad fit. Just bouncing off your comment to state that clearly.

Well, RQ came from an actually old school -- meaning one defined in the 1970s rather than the 2000s -- but it was a school defined in opposition to D&D, whereas the 'OSR' term was defined by D&Ders in opposition to a new school (or schools) of D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872502You missed a part of my point, every 'NPC' character treats magic as if it's a thing of suspicion.  Whether it is worthy of it or not.

Ah, fair enough!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872482Second:  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.

Elric? Hawkmoon? Corum?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;871984In your opinion?

Dungeons & Dragons :P

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.

Any opinions on ZeFRs (the TSR Conan clone): https://sites.google.com/site/zefrsrpg/?

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.

Quote from: markfitz;872075Well I stand by my claim that RQ6 is an OSR game ... Any takers?

It's way too good for that

Quote from: Phillip;872500it meant simply what it says: got swords, got sorcery, mix violently.

I love that definition!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Somewhere I read that it often comes  down in part to the scope of the story. High Fantasy tends to be epic in scope, whereas S&S  I guess usually isnt. I'm not an expert so why knows how true that is.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;872906Somewhere I read that it often comes  down in part to the scope of the story. High Fantasy tends to be epic in scope, whereas S&S  I guess usually isnt. I'm not an expert so why knows how true that is.

So I was looking for 'Best S&S' recently, and came across this blurb from the Best Fantasy Books website, and I find myself agreeing with most of it:

Quote from: BestFantasyBooks.comWhat Exactly IS Sword and Sorcery?

Unlike epic fantasy, sword and sorcery does not concern itself with world-endangering events; the stakes, rather, are far more personal. The danger to the hero is usually immediate rather than long term. Sword & Sorcery has a strong preference for fast-paced action tales rather than sweeping story arcs. That means there is (usually) no band of heroes facing off against dark lords that seek to destroy the world, but rather a lone hero on a personal quest of some sort.

Sword and Sorcery often has a much darker feel than some of the other subgenre fantasies; brutality is common and morality is not clearly defined. Ancient myths and legends are often incorporated into the story.

The hero of the story is often brooding and morose, sometimes fatalistic and always troubled in some way. The hero may be the shunned outcast, the perpetual loner, the misunderstood wretch who is pitied. The hero tends to be larger than life, a force of nature who can, at times, defeat more powerful opponents (gods, witches, demons, etc). The hero is not always an unfeeling brute, but might in fact be highly intelligent, though with barbaric traits or uncomfortable habits. In Sword and Sorcery, the end always justifies the means -- even if the means means sacrificing all morality.

Seems pretty spot on, now that I think about it.  Especially the part I've underlined.

(It stills removes the Corum Hawkmoon stories from the list in my opinion.  And that's all it is, MY opinion.)

Quote from: Phillip;872883In 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.

Dood, if you can make it work, than in all sincerity, that is awesome, and I honestly hope your crew has decades of fun.  And as trite as it's sound, my problem is me.  It's how I learned to run D&D, and for me (once again, let me point out that my days began with AD&D 2e) the magic and niche assumptions are very hard to overcome.  I AM trying, mind you.  Cuz. I like to think I am improving.

Am I?  I don't know, but I want to think I am, at least a little.

Quote from: Phillip;872889Maybe 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.

Norse & Greek hero-sagas both have a sense of tragic fate, whereas Swords & Sorcery is modernist and often picaresque. Hero-sagas usually end with the death of the hero, which is rare in S&S. The big exception I can think of is The Odyssey - technically Fated, but it comes across as episodic, almost picaresque, and the hero doesn't die at the end. Ulysses definitely feels the most Modern of the Greek heroes, to me.

I guess the similarity is that pagan hero-sagas and S&S are set in non-Christian universes; High Fantasy has a Christian (or quasi-Christian) ethos of divine providence about it. Which is why Elric is not part of the genre.

Hawkmoon isn't S&S, it's obviously a swords-and-planet. The planet itself might be Earth, but the genre trappings of mad science are definitely different.

Quote from: Phillip;872889Maybe 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.

Quote from: S'mon;872958Norse & Greek hero-sagas both have a sense of tragic fate, whereas Swords & Sorcery is modernist and often picaresque. Hero-sagas usually end with the death of the hero, which is rare in S&S. The big exception I can think of is The Odyssey - technically Fated, but it comes across as episodic, almost picaresque, and the hero doesn't die at the end. Ulysses definitely feels the most Modern of the Greek heroes, to me.

I guess the similarity is that pagan hero-sagas and S&S are set in non-Christian universes; High Fantasy has a Christian (or quasi-Christian) ethos of divine providence about it. Which is why Elric is not part of the genre.

I think both of these are well-said, though I'd point out that both high fantasy and S&S can have a sad-but-uplifting end to the story. One difference is that in high fantasy, that's due to the world being changed, mostly for the good, while in S&S those changes are rare and relatively less often happen to benefit the common man...
You can add a high fantasy story at the end of the age of knights when a new Age of Reason is approaching, and machines are making life easier for people, and harder for knights.
You would write a similar story in the S&S genre at the beginning of the Industrial revolution, when the same machines require coal to work, so the men, who lost their country life to them, are now being chased underground to dig coal and serve the machine, with all the health issues such work would bring them...
Even if in both stories the role of the protagonist is to help usher the new order, they'd have quite different tone to them, and I'd say, a different genre.

Hawkmoon & Science - Science makes a frequent appearance in S&S; many Conan 'sorcerors' are actually scientists using technology, and you see super-science often, eg in Thongor of Lemuria, which is otherwise a Conan pastiche. I I guess you'd call Thongor Sword & Planet too, though *sigh* :)

Quote from: AsenRG;872959I think both of these are well-said, though I'd point out that both high fantasy and S&S can have a sad-but-uplifting end to the story. One difference is that in high fantasy, that's due to the world being changed, mostly for the good, while in S&S those changes are rare and relatively less often happen to benefit the common man...
You can add a high fantasy story at the end of the age of knights when a new Age of Reason is approaching, and machines are making life easier for people, and harder for knights.
You would write a similar story in the S&S genre at the beginning of the Industrial revolution, when the same machines require coal to work, so the men, who lost their country life to them, are now being chased underground to dig coal and serve the machine, with all the health issues such work would bring them...
Even if in both stories the role of the protagonist is to help usher the new order, they'd have quite different tone to them, and I'd say, a different genre.

I don't see this - Tolkien's high fantasy is traditionalist, with the rural idyll of the Shire and Saruman/Sauron's infernal industrial machines. The sense of loss and decline is common in high fantasy. In S&S the past is typically the domain of demons and evil elder races (& gods), albeit the future may be worse too... it tends strongly to a 'live for the moment' vibe. The relative optimism of the Eternal Champion series, where humans can gain freedom by defeating the gods, if anything feels like an un-S&S trope.  Your description of "the end of the age of knights when a new Age of Reason is approaching, and machines are making life easier for people, and harder for knights" - the elegiac passing of the age of chivalry, because of Progress, is something I associate with the Western genre and its immediate predecessors in 19th century fiction (Walter Scott, notably). It's still a common romantic trope in fiction - the Last Samurai for instance - but the Whig View of History is almost diametrically opposed to "Civilisation is Unnatural - Barbarism will Always Triumph". :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;871984Which OSR rule-set does sword & sorcery the best, in your opinion?

Might depend on what you mean by "OSR."  If that means old school D&D type games, then my first choices would be:

Original D&D, house-ruled to taste
AD&D (1e) with the variant Lankhmar supplement rules
Crypts & Things
Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea

Those aren't in any particular order; I'd pick one based on the exact campaign I wanted to run.

If you mean any older rule-set or newer rule-set with an "older" design approach, then my picks would also include:

Runequest
Stormbringer/Hawkmoon

I guess I didn't pick one rule-set as being "the best" -- again, it depends on exactly what I'm aiming for.  Those are the set of choices I'd immediately think about using, though.

Some interesting thoughts on the genre here. One of the best Swords & Sorcery supplements of recent years is Pete Nash's Monster Island for RuneQuest 6.I ran a great mini campaign in the setting last year, and I must say it just drips S&S atmosphere.

In it, he runs down his take on the genre in a brief section that I find pretty much on the money. The elements he includes are the following: (condensed)

Living for the day protagonists are not great heroes and rarely save the world. In it for the loot, vengeance, romance, often base or egocentric. Pragmatic rather than epic quests.
No black and white morality flawed characters, antithesis of selfless heroic types.
Healing is hard very rare magical healing. Fights are deadly and may also often result in capture rather than killing.
Corrupting power of magic dark, perverted arts requiring sacrifice of time and sometimes innocent victims by specialist sorcerers, priests, and shamans. Some claim the genre lacks "flashy" magic, but in fact it crops up relatively often in the literature. It's just time consuming and a risk to the soul of the sorcerer.
Horror of the unknown places, creatures, and cultures encountered tend to be mysterious, disconcerting and horrifying. Creatures often include giant, savage forms of common animals and weird Chimaerae, and tribes and cultures are often horrific because of their inhumane practices, often involving dark gods.
Anthropocentric and xenophobic protagonists are invariably human, as are most of their foes. Often a clash of cultures is represented, between civilised, decadent types, and barbarian savages, or between west and east, or between various races (I expanded upon this point a little myself; I'm rereading the Conan stories at the moment, and race is a huge part of them ... It sometimes makes for uncomfortable reading to see how monstered the racial Other is in these tales, but it's a very present element. As for the gender politics ...)

I like Pete's list anyway. Also worth a mention is Ron Edwards's Sorcerer and Sword, which is a brilliant primer on S&S, including great lists of relevant reading, some of it quite little-known.

Quote from: S'mon;872965I don't see this - Tolkien's high fantasy is traditionalist, with the rural idyll of the Shire and Saruman/Sauron's infernal industrial machines. The sense of loss and decline is common in high fantasy. In S&S the past is typically the domain of demons and evil elder races (& gods), albeit the future may be worse too... it tends strongly to a 'live for the moment' vibe. The relative optimism of the Eternal Champion series, where humans can gain freedom by defeating the gods, if anything feels like an un-S&S trope.  Your description of "the end of the age of knights when a new Age of Reason is approaching, and machines are making life easier for people, and harder for knights" - the elegiac passing of the age of chivalry, because of Progress, is something I associate with the Western genre and its immediate predecessors in 19th century fiction (Walter Scott, notably). It's still a common romantic trope in fiction - the Last Samurai for instance - but the Whig View of History is almost diametrically opposed to "Civilisation is Unnatural - Barbarism will Always Triumph". :D

Well, how is that not a sense of loss and decline:)? Maybe you associate it with Western, and it could be there, but the end of the LotR book says it's just as common in high fantasy;).

(I must clarify that I'm talking about a romanticised knight, above).

I'm getting the feeling we'd all have an easier time defining "what is porn?" than figuring out "what is S&S"! :)

Quote from: AsenRG;872983Well, how is that not a sense of loss and decline:)? Maybe you associate it with Western, and it could be there, but the end of the LotR book says it's just as common in high fantasy;).

(I must clarify that I'm talking about a romanticised knight, above).

But you were associating loss/progress trope with S&S!

Quote from: S'mon;873046But you were associating loss/progress trope with S&S!

Ahem, no, that was meant to illustrate the fact that loss works differently in high fantasy and in S&S. Loss/progress is the example I was giving for High Fantasy:).
Compare "Beyond the Black River", where almost everybody died heroically, and the archer says "civilisation is unnatural, barbarism shall prevail", realising that his world is temporary, or the end of "Queen of the Black Coast";).

Quote from: AsenRG;873101Ahem, no, that was meant to illustrate the fact that loss works differently in high fantasy and in S&S. Loss/progress is the example I was giving for High Fantasy:).
Compare "Beyond the Black River", where almost everybody died heroically, and the archer says "civilisation is unnatural, barbarism shall prevail", realising that his world is temporary, or the end of "Queen of the Black Coast";).

Sorry, my bad - yes you had the elegiac loss/progress trope fitting High Fantasy, and a steampunk 'beginning of the Industrial revolution, when the same machines require coal to work, so the men, who lost their country life to them, are now being chased underground to dig coal and serve the machine, with all the health issues such work would bring them...' for S&S.

I guess I'd see both tropes as fitting better into the romantic high fantasy style, and Tolkien does do both; the 'Age of Men' replacing the Time of the Elves is elegiac loss/progress; the machines of Saruman & Sauron and despoiling of the Shire is straightforward 'industry bad'. I recall Moorcock really hated this about Tolkien.

S&S is generally very anti-romantic - I think a lot of the criticism the original Conan the Barbarian movie attracted from S&S purists was for its romanticist elements.  Personally I like the movie rather better than I like the Conan stories, precisely for this. :D