Quote from: ICFTI;316972A very fun game but I'm not sure it's Swords & Sorcery as written — using the typical genre definition, anyhow. I think, in terms of genre, T&T has always been pushing High Fantasy. Again, though, this assumes that you're using the typical definitions of those terms and not just hanging "Swords & Sorcery" on anything with magic and swords in it.

Depends a lot on the module... many of the modules are very much S&S... as many of the solo modules exclude wizards and rogues; others exclude non-humans. Some S&S fiction has been high magic, anyway... Elric, anyone?

T&T has always supported both S&S and HF...  the warrior model for T&T is S&S. Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser is generall considered S&S, and is the basis for the T&T rogue.

T&T is pretty sword and sorcery to me. Same with AD&D1e. But it's RPG sword and sorcery - not an attempted emulation of what game geeks in 2009 think of as an accurate emulation of Howard or Leiber, when they have never read the original pulps anyway.

TFT for me, but I'll have to check out Stormbringer based on the above love.

I greatly enjoy True20 and/or Mutants and Masterminds + Warriors & Warlocks for S&S action, but I'm biased because I wrote a fair amount of material for both.

Savage Worlds would also be great for some pulpy S&S action.

D&D 4e might be able to do a reasonable job with some tweaks (only martial and primal classes for PCs with some evil sorcerer NPCs), but it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice.

Iron Heroes and/or Conan d20 are also a lot of fun.

Quote from: jdurall;316952RQ is indeed badass to an immeasurable degree.

It is not, however, a sword-and-sorcery game.

The treatment of non-humans is too rich and balanced, and the emphasis on culture and religion too strongly felt, for it to fit comfortably in that category.

Point taken. My enormous love for RQ was speaking there, but I have to admit that Stormbringer is really fine-tuned for S&S.

You can make RQ a S&S but requires some customization, certainly.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;316960Another vote for 1st edition Stormbringer.

(The magic system in Stormbringer is much more S&S than the RQ magic system, in my opinion.)

True absolutely, you should ditch everything but the sorcery rules, IMO, and give the Ritual Magic a far greater importance. Hmmm. Worthy a new thread, I guess.

Barbarians of Lemuria, of course!

Simon W

Quote from: The_Shadow;317054But it's RPG sword and sorcery - not an attempted emulation of what game geeks English in 2009 think of as an accurate emulation of Howard or Leiber, when they have never read the original pulps anyway.

Well, there is an actual literary genre called Swords & Sorcery that is defined by scholars as opposed to "game geeks." The definition of that genre is fairly specific. People willfully ignoring that definition or trying to re-invent it when pimping their favorite game is a huge pet peeve of mine.

It seems like Aramis has a pretty good handle on it and he makes a good argument for the T&T thief. Your assertion that "RPG swords and sorcery" is somehow a different genre than that and the literary genre defined by actual scholars, though? That's a great example of the re-definiton I'm talking about.

Fantasy != Swords & Sorcery. :banghead:

Quote from: ICFTI;317109Well, there is an actual literary genre called Swords & Sorcery that is defined by scholars as opposed to "game geeks." The definition of that genre is fairly specific. People willfully ignoring that definition or trying to re-invent it when pimping their favorite game is a huge pet peeve of mine.

It seems like Aramis has a pretty good handle on it and he makes a good argument for the T&T thief. Your assertion that "RPG swords and sorcery" is somehow a different genre than that and the literary genre defined by actual scholars, though? That's a great example of the re-definiton I'm talking about.

Fantasy != Swords & Sorcery. :banghead:

NOT THIEF. Rogue. T&T Rogue ≠ Thief.

In later editions (5.5/7.x), theivery is a talent, one which most rogues lack.

S&S fiction generally has wizards as bad guys only, often EHP's... It's mostly humanocentric, if not human-only (arguing, for the moment, that melniboneans and Atlanteans are NOT human, since they are clearly different in their respective settings to mere men, and thus the genre isn't purely human-only), magic has a high price, and main characters often survive more by wits than steel, but survival by steel is required of them.

S&S in RPG's is a slight expansion upon that baseline... one of the very best descriptions of how to run Literary style S&S is Ron Edwards'  Sorcerer & Sword, even if Sorcerer itself is not your cup of tea.

D&D can do S&S... disallow PC & non-evil wizards, and allow only NPC clerics.
T&T does it better, since the T&T Rogue has about the same peak magical ability as the most fantastic of acknowledged S&S literature: Lieber's Nehwon, home of Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser, and living skeletons.... T&T Wizards push into high fantasy... as do the tolkeinian races.

(I've not myself read Nehwon novels... but I've seen enough adaptations and reviews... It's a humanocentric setting. By all accounts, it makes AD&D1E with all the options look positively metropolitan... And living skeletons are humans cursed with invisible flesh and skin. Their eyes, bones, and certain organs are visible.)

Problem with your Actual Literary Scholars is that they pickle things in aspic.

What I'm saying is that 1970s RPG sword and sorcery, as it dripped from the fevered brains of Gygax and St Andre, is as valid a type of sword and sorcery as that defined by said Actual Literary Scholars. So I think T&T and D&D are ideal sword and sorcery games.

If the topic was, which games are best for emulating Howard's Conan, my answer would have been different.

Quote from: ICFTI;317109Well, there is an actual literary genre called Swords & Sorcery that is defined by scholars as opposed to "game geeks." The definition of that genre is fairly specific. People willfully ignoring that definition or trying to re-invent it when pimping their favorite game is a huge pet peeve of mine.

It seems like Aramis has a pretty good handle on it and he makes a good argument for the T&T thief. Your assertion that "RPG swords and sorcery" is somehow a different genre than that and the literary genre defined by actual scholars, though? That's a great example of the re-definiton I'm talking about.

Fantasy != Swords & Sorcery. :banghead:

Those are called ghouls in Nehwon.

Anyway I agree with Stormbringer/Elric as #1. TFT has a good deal of the feel but it didn't have the clarity to leave out Elves & Dwarves. Swordbearer's an intriguing option but I don't remember it very well. The obscure game High Fantasy, in spite of the name, has a strong S&S vibe to me.

Quote from: Imperator;317097Point taken. My enormous love for RQ was speaking there, but I have to admit that Stormbringer is really fine-tuned for S&S.

You can make RQ a S&S but requires some customization, certainly.

Add another one to the club of those who think RuneQuest is not that great for Sword and Sorcery. A long time ago, I wouldn't have thought of another better game for my Conan gaming, in fact we used it to play in Hyboria. Of course, our characters were the faceless men Conan killed in spades, and not the Conan-like magnificent bastards our characters should have been. When I realized that using RuneQuest for S&S without heavy houseruling wouldn't do, my enthusiasm cooled.

On the other hand, Elric/Stormbringer 5th is an excellent game for S&S. Combat is as dangerous as in RQ but characters can be easily as capable as Conan, and kill enemies several times their number as if they were grass.

I never played Stormbringer 1st, but I played Stormbringer 4th and it was really savage, another good one.

And let me add Barbarians of Lemuria, which has the honor of being the only light rules RPG I like. The idea of using careers as skills is genius! By the way Simon, have you ever thought about adding tactical options to  Barbarians of Lemuria? It would make me love your game even more. Or maybe I should do it myself....

Quote from: ConanMK;317068I greatly enjoy True20 and/or Mutants and Masterminds + Warriors & Warlocks for S&S action, but I'm biased because I wrote a fair amount of material for both.

Maybe you can answer a question for me:

Warriors & Warlocks sounds very cool, especially as a couple of my buddies are really into Conan/Arak/Warlord comics.

However, I don't have (and I'm not interested in) Mutants and Masterminds. I do have True20. Could I play Warriors & Warlocks just based off of the True20 rules set, or do I need Mutants and Masterminds? I'm fine with modifying and handwaving some stuff, so it doesn't have to be a seamless fit. I just want to know if it's practical.

Quote from: ICFTI;316965Swordbearer, a very under-appreciated game if ever there was one. Also, FWIW, light years ahead of its time in terms of game design with regard to magic and even more mundane things like encumbrance.

The most fun I've ever had in a Swords & Sorcery campaign, though, was via Risus + houserules. I went with Swordbearer because I suspect that "Risus + houserules" isn't really a game in the sense that you mean.

I totally agree, Swordbearer rocks! I love the magic system which I found very evocative. I adjusted it to work with Riddle of Steel and now have both a nice combat AND magic system working together!

Quote from: Haffrung;317146Maybe you can answer a question for me:

Warriors & Warlocks sounds very cool, especially as a couple of my buddies are really into Conan/Arak/Warlord comics.

However, I don't have (and I'm not interested in) Mutants and Masterminds. I do have True20. Could I play Warriors & Warlocks just based off of the True20 rules set, or do I need Mutants and Masterminds? I'm fine with modifying and handwaving some stuff, so it doesn't have to be a seamless fit. I just want to know if it's practical.

If you know True20 and M&M systems well (and understand the differences between them), yes this could work. I mix M&M and True20 material all the time in my games. If, on the other hand, you aren't too familiar with one of the two games, and not too clear on what is different, it might be more of a headache than its worth. Either system can handle S&S well on its own without the need for hybridizing.

With M&M, you can pick up a pocket version of Mutants and Masterminds for around $15 and use that with Warriors and Warlocks.

With True20, I'd get the True20 Companion (which is already included in the Revised Edition of the True20 core book) first, before investing in Warriors and Warlocks if you are only getting the latter to run with True20.

Hope that helps.

Quote from: ConanMK;317158If you know True20 and M&M systems well (and understand the differences between them), yes this could work. I mix M&M and True20 material all the time in my games. If, on the other hand, you aren't too familiar with one of the two games, and not too clear on what is different, it might be more of a headache than its worth. Either system can handle S&S well on its own without the need for hybridizing.

With M&M, you can pick up a pocket version of Mutants and Masterminds for around $15 and use that with Warriors and Warlocks.

With True20, I'd get the True20 Companion (which is already included in the Revised Edition of the True20 core book) first, before investing in Warriors and Warlocks if you are only getting the latter to run with True20.

Hope that helps.

Thanks. Since I only have the True20 players manual (or whatever the cheap and streamlined version of the rules set is called), it looks as though I'd be best off picking up the pocket Mutants and Masterminds along with Warriors and Warlocks if I want to play the latter.