Defining a S&S game

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:02 pm

More than ever before, I've heard the term Sword & Sorcery style game metioned here. I initially just considered D&D a Sword & Sorcery kind of game, but now get the distinct idea it's different. I'm curious to hear what makes a game a Sword & Sorcery game.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:16 pm

To me, Sword & Sorcery is summed up by two things:

1. Conan

2. Boris Vallejo

The feel of those two things is S&S.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:22 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
To me, Sword & Sorcery is summed up by two things:

1. Conan

2. Boris Vallejo

The feel of those two things is S&S.

Definately!

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

pineappleleader · Post by **pineappleleader** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:34 am

What about Fritz Leiber (Lanhkmar Series)?

(Sorry about the spelling)
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

jamesmishler · Post by **jamesmishler** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:32 am

I was just explaining S&S vs. Fantasy to my GF, who watched the Conan the Barbarian movie with me tonight. She'd seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and thought they might be similar... er, no.

But then, the Conan movie isn't really Conan, either, but that's neither here nor there. It hardly qualifies as Conantics... bah, I better shut up about that before I go on a rant.

Anyhoo, here are the main differences...

1) S&S is humanocentric. No elves, dwarves, gnomes, or other such races. There may be non-human races, but they are distinctly exceedingly in-human and anti-human. Ape men, lizard men, perhaps fantasy-like creatures that are inhumanly mythical (kinda like, say, duergar or drow, the last remaining such, upon which myths of dwarves and elves were based), strange inhuman races who should have died out ages ago... these are S&S style races, and none of them are really acceptable for PCs.

2) Magic is quite nasty, invariably evil, does not always function properly, often requires human or other sacrifice, and is rarely every used by the PCs. Healing magic is all but unheard of, or legendary, or found only in lost cities. Magic items are exceedingly rare and usually cursed.

3) The gods are inhuman and unknowable, and would fall under what D&D classifies as Demons, Devils, or at best, Titans. "Good" gods are generally a front for grasping, greedy priests, with no real power save perhaps for some of the minor, less evil sorcerous magics.

4) Monsters are mutant giant arachnids or other insects, or beasts out of time, or horrid alien things from other words or dimensions.

5) There may be some element of ancient super-science and hyper-technology.

6) There are no good guys, really. Everyone is essentially out for himself; the bad guys are "evil" in that they enjoy causing pain and suffering, and get their jollies from it. Sorcerers and their ilk are Evil in a a way unimaginable in more standard "high fantasy."

7) Civilization is invariably decadent, while barbarism is strong and virile and semi-chivalrous, and savagery makes the decadence of civilization seem tame by comparison.

8) Combat is much deadlier (see #2), usually fought on a smaller, but more savage scale.

9) As there are no real non-human races, human racial, ethnic, and cultural hatreds often come to the fore. S&S is very not politically correct in this; it's much more real.

10) The same is said of the place of the woman in society; she's usually chattel, as was true in most ancient and medieval societies, unless she REALLY sticks out as a warrior or witch. Oh, and invariably, the fair princess loses all her clothes and all but ravages the hero at the end, evne though he is covered in sorcerer's blood, demon ichor, dinosaur filth, or all of the above.
_________________
James Mishler

Main Man, Adventure Games Publishing
jamesagp1@gmail.com
http://adventuregamespublishing.blogspot.com/
http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:27 am

jamesmishler wrote:
...sorcerer's blood, demon ichor, dinosaur filth, or all of the above.

S&S aphrodisiac!

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:16 am

Great write-up James! Very much along the lines of what I found under Bill King's Sword & Sorcery Toolkit. I don't know about all the aspect of S&S, but I do wish D&D was more conducive to S&S style magic casting.

Emryys · Post by **Emryys** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:56 am

Dristram wrote:
Very much along the lines of what I found under Bill King's Sword & Sorcery Toolkit

Nice link... Thanks
_________________

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:23 pm

S&S is also action-adventure based with little inclusion of chatacter introspection or long passages dealing with interpersonal relationships. That sort of thing simply slows down the pace.

There are not a few S&S authors that do not fit the mold offered above.

For example Poul Anderson, A. Nerritt, Michael Moorcock, Fred Saberhagen, and Stanley Weinbaum.

Cheers,

Gary

jamesmishler · Post by **jamesmishler** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:53 pm

Col_Pladoh wrote:
S&S is also action-adventure based with little inclusion of chatacter introspection or long passages dealing with interpersonal relationships. That sort of thing simply slows down the pace.

Indeed, very true. Though one must wonder at times... was that truly a native aspect of Howard's writing style, or was that aspect of his style formed by the fact that he was writing for the pulps, and thus had limited space and word counts to get his story out? Remember, Howard never wrote a complete novel... even The Hour of the Dragon was a mere novella. What would Howard's writing have been like if he was not limited in such a fashion?

Quote:
There are not a few S&S authors that do not fit the mold offered above.

For example Poul Anderson, A. Nerritt, Michael Moorcock, Fred Saberhagen, and Stanley Weinbaum.

True, but let's look more closely at them. First, Moorcock, for example, set out purposefully with Elric to turn the S&S genre on its head... after he wrote numerous pastiches in the classic S&S style. Anderson is in a class all his own, preferring to emulate the Sagas and classic medieval tales; he falls into S&S really because of the fantasy genres, that is where he fits the best. Merritt was what one would term Weird Science, rather than S&S; his stories focused more on the modern Lost World or weirdness, and fall more into the mental Lovecraftian side of the genre with a strong dash of Howardian adventure. Weinbaum, too, was more on the Science side than the Sorcery side. Finally, Saberhagen's early fantasy falls more within S&S than his later material; and even then, his is not quite the red-handed prose of Howard... Especially later.

Well, that's all in my humble opinion, of course.
_________________
James Mishler

Main Man, Adventure Games Publishing
jamesagp1@gmail.com
http://adventuregamespublishing.blogspot.com/
http://jamesmishler.blogspot.com

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:46 pm

Excellent interpretation, JM!

Although I personally only consider Howard and Leiber to be Sword & Sorcery, and others that emulate their writing, there is a lot one could add that others would disagree with. Like many subjects in this field, there is much interpretaition.

..............................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:15 pm

Noticeably missing is the name of an author I've recently been introduced to, Linwood Carter. Isnt he considered a S&S author?

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:43 pm

Omote wrote:
Excellent interpretation, JM!

Although I personally only consider Howard and Leiber to be Sword & Sorcery, and others that emulate their writing, there is a lot one could add that others would disagree with. Like many subjects in this field, there is much interpretaition.

..............................................Omote

FPQ

FWIW, Emulate means to follow another's work and surpass ut.

Cheers,

Gary

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:44 pm

Dristram wrote:
Noticeably missing is the name of an author I've recently been introduced to, Linwood Carter. Isnt he considered a S&S author?

Lin Carter mainly wrote pot boilers.

Cheers,

Gary

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:57 pm

jamesmishler wrote:
Indeed, very true. Though one must wonder at times... was that truly a native aspect of Howard's writing style, or was that aspect of his style formed by the fact that he was writing for the pulps, and thus had limited space and word counts to get his story out? Remember, Howard never wrote a complete novel... even The Hour of the Dragon was a mere novella. What would Howard's writing have been like if he was not limited in such a fashion?

As the pulps paid by the word, and many published full length novels, I do not believe that theory holds up under scrutiny.

Quote:
True, but let's look more closely at them. First, Moorcock, for example, set out purposefully with Elric to turn the S&S genre on its head... after he wrote numerous pastiches in the classic S&S style.

That his protagonist was an anti-hero makes his writing no less in the S&S genre.

Quote:
Anderson is in a class all his own, preferring to emulate the Sagas and classic medieval tales; he falls into S&S really because of the fantasy genres, that is where he fits the best.

Again, that makes his work S&S, does it not? It is unreasonable to assert that all writers must ape Robert E. howard to be considered as part of the genre.

Quote:
Merritt was what one would term Weird Science, rather than S&S; his stories focused more on the modern Lost World or weirdness, and fall more into the mental Lovecraftian side of the genre with a strong dash of Howardian adventure.

A parsing of words if one considers Moon Pool, Face in the Abyss, and Dwellers in the Mirage, and even Creep Shadow Creep.

Quote:
Weinbaum, too, was more on the Science side than the Sorcery side.

Aside from the post-cataclysmic setting, Weinbaum's fantasy was surely closer to S&S that weird science IMO.

Quote:
Finally, Saberhagen's early fantasy falls more within S&S than his later material; and even then, his is not quite the red-handed prose of Howard... Especially later.

Once again, the writing style and prose need not parrot REH to classify as S&S. Much of Leiber's writing regarding Fafhard and Gray Mouser is leagues away from Howard's. So as a matter of fact there are many styles of S&S writing, and surely many of the old the D&D game modules are in the spirit of that literary genre.

One's preference for one author above another is not a reasonable criterion for establishing what is S&S fantast,

Cheers,

Gary

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:09 pm

If'n I were more inclined to such authrs, I would say the Sanctaury series edited by Aspirin is S&S, but as I tend to not read works of fiction... I'm not really credentialled in that statement.

Gardner F Fox is S&S, though, but a pale imitator of Howard.

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:20 pm

serleran wrote:
If'n I were more inclined to such authrs, I would say the Sanctaury series edited by Aspirin is S&S, but as I tend to not read works of fiction... I'm not really credentialled in that statement.

Gardner F Fox is S&S, though, but a pale imitator of Howard.

It is unusual for a fantasy RPGer not to enjoy action-adventure yarns.

Gar Fox was a splndid chap, did excellent comic book work, write romance novels under a pen name, and did pattern his fantasy heroes Kothar and Kyrick after REH's S&S stories' heroes, mainly Conan.

Gar's stories were quire well done and exciting S&S reads, all things considered. Most were better writen than later ERB John Carter of Mars novels, for instance.

Cheers,

Gary

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:23 pm

Col_Pladoh wrote:
So as a matter of fact there are many styles of S&S writing, and surely many of the old the D&D game modules are in the spirit of that literary genre.

I used to equate D&D with S&S thinking it was just a generic term to describe a fantasy setting where medieval style weapon wielding combat and magic ruled the day. When I played D&D in the olden days, our character's were motivated by wealth hoping to end our days fat and wealthy in our castle-homes built from the treasures reaped on our many adventures.

Somehow, that focus chaged to "Saving the World!" and "Being Heroes!". I never really converted, but the games I played in guided us in that direction and I just went along for the ride.

So, can D&D, and thus C&C, be used as is to be S&S games? Or is the system not conducive to it? The only real issue I see from what I've been learning about S&S is that magic would have to be treated differently.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:30 pm

Quote:
It is unusual for a fantasy RPGer not to enjoy action-adventure yarns.

For my part, its not so much a thing with not enjoying, but as finding future works/projects ending up too overtly inspired, which I then feel is unethical/plagiaristic. So, to keep myself from thinking I'm infringing, I just don't read the stuff. If I latr find out that its been done before, I just think "well that's the neat thing about good ideas."

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:43 pm

Dristram wrote:
...So, can D&D, and thus C&C, be used as is to be S&S games? Or is the system not conducive to it? The only real issue I see from what I've been learning about S&S is that magic would have to be treated differently.

Frankly,how some persons define the S&S genre, insisting that magic be thus and so, stems from their personal opinion of what constitutes the genre. The Harold Shea stories by de Camp and Pratt were assuredly S&S in nature, and they portrayed magic far differently than did Howard or Leiber. I consider that Vance's Dying Earth is part of the S&S genre, just another aithor's variation on the broad there of swashbuckling fantasy action-adventure involving magic and primitive hand-weapons.

Cheers,

Gary

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:47 pm

serleran wrote:
For my part, its not so much a thing with not enjoying, but as finding future works/projects ending up too overtly inspired, which I then feel is unethical/plagiaristic. So, to keep myself from thinking I'm infringing, I just don't read the stuff. If I latr find out that its been done before, I just think "well that's the neat thing about good ideas."

Perhaps ypou should reconsider. Some thousands of years ago Solomon noted that there is nothing new under the sun, and that there is no end to the making of books.

It is safe to assert that every author we know of stands on the backs of those that went before him. From earliest schooling to many entertainment forms we take in and employ the writing of others.

Cheers,

Gary

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:20 am

Col_Pladoh wrote:
FWIW, Emulate means to follow another's work and surpass ut.

I would use the word to mean to imitate the original. If such writing would surpass REH or Leiber, then the reader would surely be blessed.
..........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:45 am

It seems to me that a common thread in S&S literature is the fact of the hero's being larger than life and somehow beyond the common herd. John Carter springs to mind.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Darius · Post by **Darius** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:28 pm

I do not think we need to draw as strong of a line as James has, although that is one possible interpretation. S&S are swashbuckling tales of adventure that are generally humancentric. Not to say there are not other races, but tha the world is built and mostly controled by humans. Magic has more of a limited role. It is not something that everyone has access to and what people do come across more often is usually fairly weak. The motivation tends to be more personal and the stories more about adventure.

They are not about innerpersonal conflicts and pointless conversations to fill the pages. They are not about saving the world. The world is not filled with little kingdoms of elves being your friends. In some ways when I think of S&S I just think of forgotten realms and then imagine a fantasy setting oposite of that.

old school gamer · Post by **old school gamer** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:56 pm

Col_Pladoh wrote:
Lin Carter mainly wrote pot boilers.

Cheers,

Gary

Pot-boilers are not neccessarily bad novels. A Christmas Carol from Dickens was a pot-boiler after all.

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:11 pm

old school gamer wrote:
Pot-boilers are not neccessarily bad novels. A Christmas Carol from Dickens was a pot-boiler after all.

Surely you are not comparing the wretched prose attempts of Lin Carter to the writing of Charles Dickens
Gary

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:34 pm

Empire of the east by Fred Saberhagen and the book of swords have influenced many of my games. IMO those are some of the best adventure stories ever put on paper.

Col_Pladoh · Post by **Col_Pladoh** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:39 pm

concobar wrote:
Empire of the east by Fred Saberhagen and the book of swords have influenced many of my games. IMO those are some of the best adventure stories ever put on paper.

Old Col. Pladoh won't argue with you there...that might offend the Emperor John Ominor
Cheers,

Gary

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:05 pm

I always define S&S (Swords and Sorcery) as being any combination of Swords and Sorcery. How much one likes of each in relation to the other is up to the individuals taste.

The genre, irregardless of personal tastes, just requires both swords AND sorcery. How much of each is left up to the authors who get published and the personal preferences of the reader.

So standard D&D is just as much S&S as Conan, Fahrd and Grey Mouser, Gord, Jhereg, etc....

Anyone want to argue that sci fi is't just futuristic S&S?

anglefish · Post by **anglefish** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:53 pm

Dristram wrote:
Great write-up James! Very much along the lines of what I found under Bill King's Sword & Sorcery Toolkit. I don't know about all the aspect of S&S, but I do wish D&D was more conducive to S&S style magic casting.

Perhaps replace alignement with the SRD Taint rules.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm

Then marry them to a spell point system with high costs and you'd be pretty close.