Sword & Sorcery Adventures and Campaigns

[Yora]

There appears to be, and always has been, a big overlap between fans of Conan and Elric and oldschool D&D players. You don't even need to search hard to find people who would claim that D&D originated from Sword & Sorcery fantasy, and that Red Nails is the main source for the idea of megadungeons. You also have the thing of Conan going from wandering thief to conqueror of his own kingdom being a prototype for level progression towards domain play. (With the first Conan story already explaining why ruling sucks and adventuring is way more fun.)
And I mean, what's not to like there. Sword & Sorcery is all about doing whatever the shit you like and stabbing anyone who tries to get in your way, pissing it all away to start over again until you die an awesome death.

However, fine combing dungeons for hidden gold coins or mapping tunnels and passages for weeks and months is fun as a game structure, but not exactly kick ass action in the long run. I feel Sword & Sorcery also needs to have traveling the world to meet strange people and face of against memorable villains. The boss monster in the final room of the dungeon can be very cool, but without any previous interactions there isn't going to be any personal spite against him when the heroes finally get payback.

Completely open ended question. Any thoughts on Sword & Sorcery in adventures and campaigns?

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

I find that, when running D&D, it takes conscious effort to not run it as a sword & sorcery game. That's what the game mechanics support. It's woven into the game's DNA.

The official modules for 2nd Edition and 5th Edition tend to lean more into high fantasy (and in 5th's case, epic high fantasy), as does anything to do with the Dragonlance campaign setting. But, even in those systems and that setting, the structure of the game itself makes it just as easy (if not easier) to run campaigns that look more like series of related short stories from "Wierd Tales."

If you are playing an edition where experience points are gained from finding loot, that's treasure-hunting, and treasure-hunting is the stuff of S&S fiction. If you are playing an edition where experience points are gained from combat, that's slaying monsters, and slaying monsters is also the stuff of S&S fiction.

And yes, that does mean your group should eventually get out of the dungeon, since there is more to S&S than just fighting monsters in dark holes. But, there is mechanical support for that as well! The rules for things outside of Dungeons are just a little more loosey-goosey, but that is fitting for when you enter a more open-ended environment.

 

[The1True]

Any thoughts on Sword & Sorcery in adventures and campaigns?

You kind of glossed it there, but could you further define what you think S&S is so that people can approach the question on your terms?

Myyyyy understanding of S&S is combat tends to be more lethal (limiting characters to lower levels/fewer hp). Magic tends to be rarer/more eldritch. Healing is virtually nonexistent. And, on a mechanical level, narrative is more important than granular rules (which slow the action down).

 

[Yora]

No, I want to hear what you think about Sword & Sorcery in RPGs.

 

[The1True]

Okay, but as I said: What do you think of as S&S? Is your definition similar to mine?

 

[Beoric]

Myyyyy understanding of S&S is combat tends to be more lethal (limiting characters to lower levels/fewer hp). Magic tends to be rarer/more eldritch. Healing is virtually nonexistent. And, on a mechanical level, narrative is more important than granular rules (which slow the action down).

Sword and Sorcery is generally only lethal for villains, extras and supporting characters - ie. NPCs. Protagonists tend to be pretty indestructible. I see that as a difference with 0e, B+ and OSR D&D. If we are looking at protagonists like Conan, Kane, Elric, etc., the combat model is more like the 4e fights with PCs taking out hordes of 1 HP minions (not my preferred model, FWIW). Everyone is a 1 HP minion except the boss, and the boss is taken out by trickery or some McGuffin.

S&S tends to be short stories, whereas Classic D&D often emphasizes the campaign. OSR seems less campaign focused, so that is closer to S&S from my POV.

There isn't much of the domain game reflected in S&S, except for the odd Conan story, and IIRC those were after the domain was established and didn't involve much resource management or grand strategy.

Not a lot of resource management going on in S&S.

I was reading both S&S (mostly Howard, Moorcock and Burroughs) and Tolkien (and knockoffs) in my early D&D days, and our games never seemed to have much of the feel of either of those genres. Even at the time I was aware of a distinct lack of dungeons in either (the passage through Moria in Fellowship does NOT count), and the fact that fiction has a plot and our games most assuredly did not. Fantasy fiction and movies put me in the mood to play D&D, but they weren't D&D; it's almost like they created the itch, and D&D was the scratch.

Really the best genre analogy to Classic/OSR D&D that I have run across is survival horror. The way you inch along, conserving resources you have, trying to use your environment as a hedge against more powerful creatures, with a constant tension between speed and caution, really seems to fit the dungeon exploration part of D&D. Cautious exploration punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Not to mention that survival horror tends to have only the slimmest of plots.

But the mediums are so different, really, that unless you are playing a Trad game (where you are to a large extent experiencing a plot created by someone else) it is hard to make analogies between D&D and literary or theatrical genres.

 

[squeen]

I guess I've always equated S&S as being more Swords vs. Sorcery. The protagonists are generally not the ones with lots of magic or special powers. It is the mundane vs. the occult.

Also, it tends to be closer to Bronze Age/Age-of-Heroes than early renaissance. Hollywood once called that "Swords and Sandals" films.

As soon as our heroes are themselves the exotics (as oppose to the every-man)...then it's high fantasy.

 

[Yora]

Sword and Sandals is generally historical fiction about Rome and Greece during antiquity, but of course things become blurry when mythological elements enter the stories.

I think the key elements of Sword & Sorcery within fantasy are that everything and everyone is larger than life, and that victory is gained by being bold rather than cautious. The later one being an aspect that very much goes against the Gygaxian Funhouse of Death. Cunning and trickery are great, but slow and methodical isn't the way of fearless, death defying warriors.

I think hidden traps would slow things down in an unfitting way. Though clearly telegraphed obstacles of spiky doom can still work. Dungeons in general probably work best when being relatively small, being specific individual lairs rather than grand underground labyrinths. And the heroes typically descend into these lairs looking for something specific they know to be there, rather than exploring the places to be surprised by what exciting things they might encounter.

 

[Beoric]

I think the key elements of Sword & Sorcery within fantasy are that everything and everyone is larger than life, and that victory is gained by being bold rather than cautious. The later one being an aspect that very much goes against the Gygaxian Funhouse of Death. Cunning and trickery are great, but slow and methodical isn't the way of fearless, death defying warriors.

I agree with this. I think this is possible to do using 4e, when you run it as the WotC marketing department tells you to, because of the mecahnical ability to create both 1 HP "minions" and party-threatening "solos" and use them in the same adventure. You could also probably pull it off in earlier editions if you used mid-level PCs and threw mostly <1 HD enemies at them. But it wouldn't feel very "Classic" or "OSR".

I think hidden traps would slow things down in an unfitting way. Though clearly telegraphed obstacles of spiky doom can still work. Dungeons in general probably work best when being relatively small, being specific individual lairs rather than grand underground labyrinths. And the heroes typically descend into these lairs looking for something specific they know to be there, rather than exploring the places to be surprised by what exciting things they might encounter.

S&S main characters seem to have either an extremely high passive perception, or an extremely high dex/reflex save, or both; traps are always noticed at the last minute, or triggered but the character saves himself through his reflexes. If you wanted to do simulate this you would need to make traps very easy to find, or easy to avoid getting caught in, and essentially a puzzle to defeat. Or you could make them automatically found, and just narrate the near-miss darts or almost falling in the pit in your description of how they are found. Also not the way I choose to play, but probably superior to untelegraphed gotcha traps.

 

[Yora]

Another thought I just had is that it seems to feel more right to have most of the treasure from an adventure to all be in a big pile, typically after the main threat has been overcome. The typical oldschool D&D dungeon appears to be looking for coins between couch cushions, but that's one of the things that slows down the action and encourages progressing slow and methodically.
In contrast, having a scene towards the end where the heroes joyfully plunder the villain's vault and wonder at the interesting and strange items stored there seems much more in the style of Sword & Sorcery.

 

[The1True]

Sword and Sorcery is generally only lethal for villains, extras and supporting characters

Agreed, except when the hero does take a wound, it's usually fucking horrible. A lot of the grimdark that's been coming out in the last 20 years, which to an extent, I view as millennial S&S resurgence, features this; with their protagonists often receiving maiming strikes in combat (Jesse Bullington and his nom de plume, Alex Marshall, are a real motherfucker for this).

(the passage through Moria in Fellowship does NOT count)

I can confirm that ICE's 'Moria' for MERP was DEEPLY disappointing.

I've definitely played S&S-style D&D using 2, 2.5, 3 and 3.5e rules. In all cases, it was the result of an evening/afternoon of loose play usually brought on by some combination of a lack of rulebooks/unconverted stats from earlier edition modules/use of an unprepared adventure/mild 'chemical alteration'. Some strange alchemy leads to improvisational DM'ing, inspired and entertaining choices by the players and a ton of thrills and laughs. It's sessions like this that build the warmest memories and bring non-hobbyist friends back to the table----
----unfortunately, long-term, it's not sustainable. Rules waved/ignored/made up to keep the game moving end up becoming problematic precedent that turn into ugly disputes down the line. It's also very difficult to keep a group like that together. There's usually a guy who's fucking hilarious and impulsive who is the secret spice to that strange alchemy and will not show up with any kind of dependability.

In my experience S&S derives from looser play, which is achievable through any rules system or edition (some more readily than others, no argument) and generally doesn't work for more than a weekend one-shot, or an irregular campaign.

 

[The1True]

Dungeons in general probably work best when being relatively small, being specific individual lairs rather than grand underground labyrinths.

Yeah, or you gloss over travel through the huge labyrinth/abandoned city of the ancients. Maybe represent it with a couple of procedurally generated encounters/inflection points to offer a sense of the journey/exploration taken by the characters and allowing their choices/actions to affect from which direction and in what condition they reach the objective of their S&S quest. It becomes almost a narrative gap, like "after hours of traipsing through the silent, twisting streets you come upon the base of the tower you've been using as a landmark. An upper window emits a green, eldritch glow."
The tower is the action, not looting a thousand dusty houses and businesses.

 

[The1True]

Another thought I just had is that it seems to feel more right to have most of the treasure from an adventure to all be in a big pile, typically after the main threat has been overcome. The typical oldschool D&D dungeon appears to be looking for coins between couch cushions, but that's one of the things that slows down the action and encourages progressing slow and methodically.
In contrast, having a scene towards the end where the heroes joyfully plunder the villain's vault and wonder at the interesting and strange items stored there seems much more in the style of Sword & Sorcery.

Finding the maguffin or other helpful item to assist with the otherwise extremely difficult final boss is legit though.

Also, treasure found early on is cool for the 'escape with the very heavy/very obvious loot' plot or the 'the treasure was not the point' plot.

 

[squeen]

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the gist of where you guys are taking this. To me S&S is a setting, but what you all are describing is heroic narrative play. I don't think you want to conflate the two. By your definition, Indiana Jones is S&S. If this is becoming the modern definition, then the phrase is losing it's original meaning.

I think this is falling down the hole the D&D game has struggled with since inception. Folks want to play out novels or movies, which are episodic. The problem there is that stories are stories and not really games. The heroes in those stories are exceptional, and it's tricky to cast a PC into that mold. We steal setting elements from those stories, but beyond that you are on a slippery slope to the railroad station.

Is this not precisely the Classic vs. Trad divide?

 

[Yora]

I don't see that. Railroading means determining the result of illusionary forking points in advance without considering the inputs from the players as they play the game. Dungeon layouts and monster and treasure placement doesn't do any such things.
If you were to say PCs always succeed and never get seriously hurt, then there'd indeed be little agency and tension, but I don't see that being promoted here.

And sure, Indiana Jones uses the archetypes and themes of Sword & Sorcery in a modern setting. It's awesome.

Finding the maguffin or other helpful item to assist with the otherwise extremely difficult final boss is legit though.

Also, treasure found early on is cool for the 'escape with the very heavy/very obvious loot' plot or the 'the treasure was not the point' plot.

That's exactly the kind of exceptions to "typical" that I had in mind. Tower of the Elephant famously has the giant piles of treasure right after the first mundane obstacle and before the three big supernatural ones.

 

[Beoric]

Another thought I just had is that it seems to feel more right to have most of the treasure from an adventure to all be in a big pile, typically after the main threat has been overcome. The typical oldschool D&D dungeon appears to be looking for coins between couch cushions, but that's one of the things that slows down the action and encourages progressing slow and methodically.
In contrast, having a scene towards the end where the heroes joyfully plunder the villain's vault and wonder at the interesting and strange items stored there seems much more in the style of Sword & Sorcery.

I do this. If if have a dragon in a dungeon, I will reallocate treasure from lesser monsters to pump the dragon's hoard.

Yeah, or you gloss over travel through the huge labyrinth/abandoned city of the ancients. Maybe represent it with a couple of procedurally generated encounters/inflection points to offer a sense of the journey/exploration taken by the characters and allowing their choices/actions to affect from which direction and in what condition they reach the objective of their S&S quest. It becomes almost a narrative gap, like "after hours of traipsing through the silent, twisting streets you come upon the base of the tower you've been using as a landmark. An upper window emits a green, eldritch glow."
The tower is the action, not looting a thousand dusty houses and businesses.

This is why I overlay a hex map on cities, populated or ruined. I treat it more like a hexcrawl through neighbourhoods than a road by road/corridor by corridor exploration. I won't do a narrative montage anymore, I found it removed more agency than I liked.

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the gist of where you guys are taking this. To me S&S is a setting, but what you all are describing is heroic narrative play. I don't think you want to conflate the two. By your definition, Indiana Jones is S&S. If this is becoming the modern definition, then the phrase is losing it's original meaning.

I think this is falling down the hole the D&D game has struggled with since inception. Folks want to play out novels or movies, which are episodic. The problem there is that stories are stories and not really games. The heroes in those stories are exceptional, and it's tricky to cast a PC into that mold. We steal setting elements from those stories, but beyond that you are on a slippery slope to the railroad station.

Is this not precisely the Classic vs. Trad divide?

Well, yeah, I think I called this out as being a Classic v. Trad issue. You can have S&S as a setting, but it is hard to get the feel of S&S without adding a plot. Although I do think some of the tweaks I suggested - using lots of <1 HD monsters, running a less lethal game (I still think a lot of AD&D classic modules aren't particularly lethal, and I also think lethality is not the only measure of challenge), changes to treasure placement, and making traps easy to find but hard to overcome, for example - can help set that tone without running a Trad game.

There is a definite conflation of S&S with pulp fiction, with which it shares a lot of structural elements, if not cosmetic ones. I'm not sure it is entirely wrong to do so in this context, I would have to think about it for a while.

 

[squeen]

There is a definite conflation of S&S with pulp fiction, with which it shares a lot of structural elements, if not cosmetic ones. I'm not sure it is entirely wrong to do so in this context, I would have to think about it for a while.

I hear y'all. But to lump all pulp fiction into the category of Swords & Sorcery --- whether there are actual swords or sorcery or not --- it an abuse of the language IMO which potentially creates a lot of confusion.

Let's call it Pulp Fiction, or Action Adventure, or the like and let S&S be a separate and distinct sub-class associated with a particular setting.

 

[Starmenter]

Sword and Sorcery is generally only lethal for villains, extras and supporting characters - ie. NPCs. Protagonists tend to be pretty indestructible. I see that as a difference with 0e, B+ and OSR D&D. If we are looking at protagonists like Conan, Kane, Elric, etc., the combat model is more like the 4e fights with PCs taking out hordes of 1 HP minions (not my preferred model, FWIW). Everyone is a 1 HP minion except the boss, and the boss is taken out by trickery or some McGuffin.

Is this really true? I'm not familiar with Kane or Elric, but every Conan fight I can think of has him engaging a single powerful enemy. As for lethality, I don't think there is any genre except for maybe spoofs where the protagonists regularly die with extreme bathos. Khaleryon Firesoul the Paladin of Freya breaking her neck in a pit trap or getting eaten alive by fire beetles is an expression of gamism, not genre emulation.

There isn't much of the domain game reflected in S&S, except for the odd Conan story, and IIRC those were after the domain was established and didn't involve much resource management or grand strategy.

Not a lot of resource management going on in S&S.

I strongly agree. The same is true for Greek and Germanic mythology - the king are always out adventuring himself and leading from the front. Beowulf fights the dragon with only a single retainer. There are no Kull stories about wheat fungus or tariff policy. Most of these tales are very similar to ones about more humble adventurers, except the stakes are higher. The idea of monarchs being insulated administrators is a modern concept; the kings of old were heavy dudes!

 

[Beoric]

Is this really true? I'm not familiar with Kane or Elric, but every Conan fight I can think of has him engaging a single powerful enemy. As for lethality, I don't think there is any genre except for maybe spoofs where the protagonists regularly die with extreme bathos. Khaleryon Firesoul the Paladin of Freya breaking her neck in a pit trap or getting eaten alive by fire beetles is an expression of gamism, not genre emulation.

IIRC, in Conan stories there is often at least one "mook" band of tribesmen/bandits/assassins/guards, one "monster" like a big snake or something, and a wizard or Evil High Priest. But there can also be more mook fights. Mooks can take out nameless supporting men-at-arms, but named characters are usually good for a couple of mooks each, and Conan probably gets 2-4.

I mean, there are exceptions and variations. Tower of the Elephant comes to mind. But I know a lot of my memories of those books (mostly from long ago, I will admit) are of Conan mowing through hordes. Same with Elric.

 

[Malrex]

I think it can be a setting, but also a vibe.
Always felt S&S was more human interaction--going against human cultists, bandits, etc. Because going against orcs makes it more Tolkien.
But there should be some weird monsters too or strange magics--but rare. Too much and it leads it to a gonzo vibe. magic and magic items should be rare and mysterious.