AS&SH Reviews

[scalydemon]

I don't think Ad&d 1e = power gaming, I think he is confusing things with 3e, 3.5e and 4e
I think he may be confusing Hyboria, which was definitely a low magic setting, with your interpretation of Hyperborea, which is a different place indeed.

[Ghul]

Sept 1, 2013 9:05:20 GMT -6 scalydemon said:

I don't think Ad&d 1e = power gaming, I think he is confusing things with 3e, 3.5e and 4e
I think he may be confusing Hyboria, which was definitely a low magic setting, with your interpretation of Hyperborea, which is a different place indeed.

Well, I have to admit, I had to look him up on Wikipedia to remember his work other than as editor of the GH boxed set. It's an odd wiki, though, and I have a sneaking suspicion it's an autobiography. The majority of his gaming credits seem to encompass the gold box games and related works (which I played on my C64 back in the day), followed by several 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and 4e credits. The GH boxed set is wonderful, and the Marvel Super Heroes game was fantastic. Apparently he left WotC in 2011 and has since taken an interest in the OSR (I assume this due to the content of his blog). But the way he explains what AD&D is and how it is played, how he explains the "failings" of AS&SH, and his warped sense of what S&S fiction is "supposed to be," I am left wondering whether he actually gets how people play fantasy RPGs and whether he's really read any of the novels he purports to have read. Maybe he's been in too deep for too long. I don't know. But let me be clear, I'm not offended by Steve's opinions -- not by any stretch; it's not even a negative review. I've read some negative reactions to my game, and thankfully I've read more positive reactions, and all of that is par for the course, but Winter's concluding opinions (especially considering his pedigree) genuinely surprised me.

[Mjollnir]

Sept 1, 2013 9:01:10 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I think Steve Winter has a good point, a point that could be mostly satisfied by combining the following good points of the following three games:

1. Dropping all non-human PC races (as in AS&S and in Gabor Lux's Sword and Magic game)
2. Dropping all standardized magic items (as in the Lamentations of the Flame Princess game)
3. Dropping the ability for PCs to make magic items (as mostly done in AS&S)
4. Dropping all standardized monsters (as in the Lamentations of the Flame Princess game)
5. Dropping all spells of over 5th level (as in Gabor Lux's Sword and Magic game)

Do all of that, and you're well on the way to playing D&D in sword & sorcery style.

2. Although I don't recall it being spelled out in the books anywhere, I take it for granted that magic items will be more rare in Hyperborea compared to the Forgotten Realms.
4. I don't care for the "no bestiary" approach. Having to use (and convert) creatures from the AD&D Monster Manual diminishes would diminish AS&SH's value as a standalone game, and I have no interest in generating a "new" esoteric creature every time I turn around.
5. Powerful wizards cast powerful spells; makes sense to me.

[Ghul]

Sept 1, 2013 9:01:10 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Do all of that, and you're well on the way to playing D&D in sword & sorcery style.

See, as soon as you say that, I can't help but think it's a bunch of bologna. Who defines S&S style? Now it's Geoffrey?

[mabon5127]

Sept 2, 2013 22:19:41 GMT -6 Mjollnir said:

Sept 1, 2013 9:01:10 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I think Steve Winter has a good point, a point that could be mostly satisfied by combining the following good points of the following three games:

1. Dropping all non-human PC races (as in AS&S and in Gabor Lux's Sword and Magic game)
2. Dropping all standardized magic items (as in the Lamentations of the Flame Princess game)
3. Dropping the ability for PCs to make magic items (as mostly done in AS&S)
4. Dropping all standardized monsters (as in the Lamentations of the Flame Princess game)
5. Dropping all spells of over 5th level (as in Gabor Lux's Sword and Magic game)

Do all of that, and you're well on the way to playing D&D in sword & sorcery style.

2. Although I don't recall it being spelled out in the books anywhere, I take it for granted that magic items will be more rare in Hyperborea compared to the Forgotten Realms.
4. I don't care for the "no bestiary" approach. Having to use (and convert) creatures from the AD&D Monster Manual diminishes AS&SH's value as a standalone game, and I have no interest in generating a "new" esoteric creature every time I turn around.
5. Powerful wizards cast powerful spells; makes sense to me.

Actually it's the Lamentations game that has no bestiary. ASSH has a very complete bestiary. I'm not sure how not having a bestiary is a benefit. I can always choose not to use. It seems that the sorcerers in the genre could do whatever the writer needed them to do to move their story along.

Morgan

[Ghul]

Morgan, I think mjollnir knows that. I think the intent of his statement was to say that having no monsters in AS&SH and having to convert monsters from AD&D would diminish AS&SH's value as a stand-alone game. I don't like the no bestiary approach for a fantasy RPG. I understand the allure of unique monsters in an adventure, or even familiar monsters that have been non-standardized, but I think randomly generating every monster on the fly with a chart sounds very unappealing to me. I actually love the monsters of Greek, Norse, Egyptian, and Celtic mythologies. I also love the mythology of D&D -- the monsters created for the game over the course of decades has become like its own mythology. I also like new monster books, like Monsters of Myth, an OSRIC book published by Black Blade. And I like uniquely created monsters, too. But to say, "OK, your party has run into a monster. Let's randomly generate it . . . esoterically!" is just not my speed. If it's fun for Geoffrey, that's great, and I know he promotes this style of play at every forum we both visit. Maybe others like it, too. It's just not for me.

[mabon5127]

Sept 3, 2013 7:11:35 GMT -6 Ghul said:

Morgan, I think mjollnir knows that. I think the intent of his statement was to say that having no monsters in AS&SH and having to convert monsters from AD&D would diminish AS&SH's value as a stand-alone game. I don't like the no bestiary approach for a fantasy RPG. I understand the allure of unique monsters in an adventure, or even familiar monsters that have been non-standardized, but I think randomly generating every monster on the fly with a chart sounds very unappealing to me. I actually love the monsters of Greek, Norse, Egyptian, and Celtic mythologies. I also love the mythology of D&D -- the monsters created for the game over the course of decades has become like its own mythology. I also like new monster books, like Monsters of Myth, an OSRIC book published by Black Blade. And I like uniquely created monsters, too. But to say, "OK, your party has run into a monster. Let's randomly generate it . . . esoterically!" is just not my speed. If it's fun for Geoffrey, that's great, and I know he promotes this style of play at every forum we both visit. Maybe others like it, too. It's just not for me.

With a second reading you are correct. I thought perhaps he had it mixed up with the reference to Lamentations. My bad. I apologize.

Morgan

[blackadder23]

I actually am a little baffled that supposed disciples of Lovecraft would claim that "every monster should be unique" when the entire point of the Cthulhu Mythos was that HPL and his associates reused and recycled the same entities, books, and general mumbo jumbo. Just to give one example, Old Ones (aka Elder Things) appear in "At the Mountains of Madness" and "Dreams in the Witch House", as well as being mentioned in "The Shadow Out of Time" and probably elsewhere.  As far as the supposed necessity of unique monsters in S&S fantasy goes, I would point out that grey apes appear in the Conan stories "The Hour of the Dragon", "Rogues in the House", and "Iron Shadows in the Moon". But I suppose HPL and REH were probably "doing it wrong".

(My other problem with this theory - that unknown monsters are more frightening - is that I don't believe it's necessarily true. Yes, a party that meets an unknown creature with unknown powers and weaknesses is going to be worried. But a low level party with no magic or silver weapons that meets what appears to be a wight or werewolf is going to be terrified - precisely because they know what it can do. I have seen a full strength party take to panicked flight at the mere sight of a monster that was known to drain energy. If that's not creating real fear in your players, I don't know what is.)

[mabon5127]

Sept 3, 2013 8:05:39 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

I actually am a little baffled that supposed disciples of Lovecraft would claim that "every monster should be unique" when the entire point of the Cthulhu Mythos was that HPL and his associates reused and recycled the same entities, books, and general mumbo jumbo. Just to give one example, Old Ones (aka Elder Things) appear in "At the Mountains of Madness" and "Dreams in the Witch House", as well as being mentioned in "The Shadow Out of Time" and probably elsewhere.  As far as the supposed necessity of unique monsters in S&S fantasy goes, I would point out that grey apes appear in the Conan stories "The Hour of the Dragon", "Rogues in the House", and "Iron Shadows in the Moon". But I suppose HPL and REH were probably "doing it wrong".

(My other problem with this theory - that unknown monsters are more frightening - is that I don't believe it's necessarily true. Yes, a party that meets an unknown creature with unknown powers and weaknesses is going to be worried. But a low level party with no magic or silver weapons that meets what appears to be a wight or werewolf is going to be terrified - precisely because they know what it can do. I have seen a full strength party take to panicked flight at the mere sight of a monster that was known to drain energy. If that's not creating real fear in your players, I don't know what is.)

There are lots of creatures, particularly minions of greater beings, that are the same, Deep ones, Hounds of Tindalos, on and on. I think the difference for me from high fantasy to S&S is the protagonist. Fewer humanoids means more human enemies. More natural animal enemies like great bears, wolves, and "grey apes".

Part of the fun of meeting creatures in game is the real experience of fighting them as a player and learning their abilities and so on. If I had to face randomly assembled monsters every time it probably would not be as fun.

I also think you are spot on when you say that players respect "X" creature because of its legendary powers. Random beasts lose this effect.

Morgan

[odysseus]

Sept 3, 2013 9:03:23 GMT -6 mabon5127 said:

There are lots of creatures, particularly minions of greater beings, that are the same, Deep ones, Hounds of Tindalos, on and on. I think the difference for me from high fantasy to S&S is the protagonist. Fewer humanoids means more human enemies. More natural animal enemies like great bears, wolves, and "grey apes".

Part of the fun of meeting creatures in game is the real experience of fighting them as a player and learning their abilities and so on. If I had to face randomly assembled monsters every time it probably would not be as fun.

I also think you are spot on when you say that players respect "X" creature because of its legendary powers. Random beasts lose this effect.

Morgan

I agree too. To me, it's not about unique monsters but more about rarely appearing monsters. Most of the time the encountered humans will be "monstrous" enough to justify an opposition for the PCs. Monsters are here just to show the oddness and corruption/decay of the nature or deities of the world the PCs inhabit.


Maybe we could have a separate thread about what is S&S to keep this one clear ?

[geoffrey]

I think that AS&SH's plethora of sub-classes helps give it a sword & sorcery feel (contra Steve Winter's dislike of sub-classes). Conan's most frequent opponents were human beings of various sorts. Having lots of character classes (as well as lots of types of humans, which AS&SH also has) helps facilitate lots of human opponents.

A couple of clarifications regarding my liking of unique creatures:

1. I do not include real-world animals (either living or extinct) in this. I have no problem with lots of apes, or lots of tyrannosaurus rexes, or packs of wolves, etc. I have no problem with multiple giant versions of animals, either.

2. I consider a single group of monsters of the same sort to be "unique". A monster does not have to be the single, sole example of its kind. What I like to avoid is the players saying, "Oh, a ______. We've ran into those before." I don't remember Conan ever running into a fantastic monster the likes of which he had ran into before. He kept fighting men, and giant snakes, and apes, but I do not remember him (for example) fighting more than one of the demon-things that he fought in "Beyond the Black River". It was a unique entity, the likes of which he had never fought before. To me, having monster species (goblins, gnolls, basilisks, etc.) spread over wide areas risks diluting a sword & sorcery vibe. Some hand-picked monster species won't necessarily do this, but when basically the entire Monster Manual is used as a description of a campaign world's monster population, it feels less sword & sorcery to me.

[blackadder23]

Sept 3, 2013 16:46:33 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I don't remember Conan ever running into a fantastic monster the likes of which he had ran into before. He kept fighting men, and giant snakes, and apes, but I do not remember him (for example) fighting more than one of the demon-things that he fought in "Beyond the Black River". It was a unique entity, the likes of which he had never fought before.

From "Beyond the Black River":

Balthus felt his scalp prickle. Neither man nor any beast that he had ever seen could have left that strange, monstrous, three-toed print, that was curiously combined of the bird and the reptile, yet a true type of neither. He spread his fingers above the print, careful not to touch it, and grunted explosively. He could not span the mark.

"What is it?" he whispered. "I never saw a beast that left a spoor like that."

"Nor any other sane man," answered Conan grimly. "It's a swamp demon – they're thick as bats in the swamps beyond Black River. You can hear them howling like d**ned souls when the wind blows strong from the south on hot nights."

So much for "unique"! The creature was part of a species that was "thick as bats in the swamps beyond Black River". And while it's true that Conan never met another one in the course of a published adventure, he was familiar enough with swamp demons to recognize their tracks. Not exactly a case of "what is this nameless thing!?!?"

But one of my favorite quotes (because of Conan's hilariously lackadaisical attitude) is from the end of "The Vale of Lost Women":

"A devil from the Outer Dark," [Conan] grunted. "Oh, they're nothing uncommon. They lurk thick as fleas outside the belt of light which surrounds this world. I've heard the wise men of Zamora talk of them. Some find their way to Earth, but when they do, they have to take on earthly form and flesh of some sort. A man like myself, with a sword, is a match for any amount of fangs and talons, infernal or terrestrial."

So "devils from the Outer Dark" are "nothing uncommon" and "thick as fleas". Again, it appears that such monsters were hardly rare, let alone "unique". And Conan just kills it with his sword and then shrugs it off: "Eh, a demon. Nothing to see here."

I'm certainly not trying to bust your chops.  But I'm always seeing these same statements - which I'm forced to call "canards" - about what is and isn't "sword-and-sorcery fantasy", and they just don't accord with my reading of the literature. Another example: you said (and others have similarly said) that S&S sorcerers should be limited in power compared to their AD&D counterparts. In "The Hour of the Dragon" a sorcerer (who earlier dropped a bunch of cliffs on Conan's army, killing thousands) is in the process of bringing an entire long-vanished nation back from the mists of time. I don't know about you, but as a DM I wouldn't allow even an AD&D wish to accomplish that! Certainly this was an uncommonly powerful sorcerer, but how common are 17th level magic-users in AD&D? Not very! And even they couldn't do such a thing. Meanwhile, literary "high fantasy" wizard Gandalf... lit some pinecones on fire, I think. If anything, I would argue that some people have the relative power of magic in "high fantasy" and "sword-and-sorcery" exactly backwards.

And frankly, I see nothing at all that suggests that Conan's contemporaries were incapable of crafting magic items, or that every magic item was unique. Can you point to something in a story that implies this? If not, and it isn't part of the literature... then what exactly makes you think these restrictions are necessary for a "sword-and-sorcery" flavor? Is this a case of Robert Howard "doing it wrong"?

[geoffrey]

Those are good points and good texts, blackadder23. I am going to re-read "Beyond the Black River". Poor me, given that it's my favorite Conan story!

[blackadder23]

Reading (or re-reading) Howard is something I always endorse.

I didn't mean to suggest that your criteria wouldn't make for a good game, or that many people wouldn't agree that they convey a "sword-and-sorcery" flavor. I'm sure that they would. I just don't believe any of those things is really necessary for the S&S subgenre. I personally believe (based on an extensive reading of fantasy literature) that the S&S subgenre has two distinguishing characteristics:

1) The protagonists are motivated by narrow personal concerns, and the stories are about those personal concerns (rather than abstract goals like saving the world).

2) The protagonists triumph through brains and brawn most of the time (rather than some gimmick like dropping a ring in a volcano).

As you may suppose, by my definition, AD&D itself is already an S&S game, and Greyhawk is an S&S setting; I certainly believe this is what Gary intended, given his stated distaste for "high fantasy", and I'm not a big fan of deconstructionism (which is, generally speaking, academic vultures picking at the bones of giants). The fact that Gary dropped orcs into the mix really doesn't seem that germane to me; honestly, the Picts as portrayed by Howard are practically orcs anyway.  AD&D characters are rogues on the make, they mostly kill what they meet with a sword (albeit sometimes a magical sword), and they can rise from mercenary adventurers to rulers (hey, just like Conan).  To me, that spells sword-and-sorcery adventure! - and no amount of humanoids, or flashy magic, or clerics, or good alignments, or plate mail*, or any of the other details that serve as sticking points for some people, can change that fact.

* - Seriously, this criticism, which I've seen a few times, seems very odd to me.  Even leaving aside the fact that Conan is wearing some kind of plate armor in "The Phoenix on the Sword" and "The Hour of the Dragon"... come on, it's not sword-and-sorcery if you have armor better than chain?  That's just ridiculously picky!

[Ghul]

Sept 6, 2013 8:31:37 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

Reading (or re-reading) Howard is something I always endorse.

I didn't mean to suggest that your criteria wouldn't make for a good game, or that many people wouldn't agree that they convey a "sword-and-sorcery" flavor. I'm sure that they would. I just don't believe any of those things is really necessary for the S&S subgenre. I personally believe (based on an extensive reading of fantasy literature) that the S&S subgenre has two distinguishing characteristics:

1) The protagonists are motivated by narrow personal concerns, and the stories are about those personal concerns (rather than abstract goals like saving the world).

2) The protagonists triumph through brains and brawn most of the time (rather than some gimmick like dropping a ring in a volcano).

As you may suppose, by my definition, AD&D itself is already an S&S game, and Greyhawk is an S&S setting; I certainly believe this is what Gary intended, given his stated distaste for "high fantasy", and I'm not a big fan of deconstructionism (which is, generally speaking, academic vultures picking at the bones of giants). The fact that Gary dropped orcs into the mix really doesn't seem that germane to me; honestly, the Picts as portrayed by Howard are practically orcs anyway.  AD&D characters are rogues on the make, they mostly kill what they meet with a sword (albeit sometimes a magical sword), and they can rise from mercenary adventurers to rulers (hey, just like Conan).  To me, that spells sword-and-sorcery adventure! - and no amount of humanoids, or flashy magic, or clerics, or good alignments, or plate mail*, or any of the other details that serve as sticking points for some people, can change that fact.

* - Seriously, this criticism, which I've seen a few times, seems very odd to me.  Even leaving aside the fact that Conan is wearing some kind of plate armor in "The Phoenix on the Sword" and "The Hour of the Dragon"... come on, it's not sword-and-sorcery if you have armor better than chain?  That's just ridiculously picky!

I can find no major fault with anything stated above. You prefaced your statement ". . . that S&S has two distinguishing characteristics . . ." by saying it is what you personally believe, which may seem like semantics, but it bears mentioning, as no one's blanket statement, to me, is going to define the genre -- even if they are (as in your case) stating an opinion I concur with. I would say that REH skirts close to a "save the world" plot in Hour of the Dragon; imagine, if you will, what would have happened if Conan lost? A certain end of the world as we know it (bad REM pun intended) surely would have transpired. All in all, great post BA23, and well considered.

[mabon5127]

Sept 6, 2013 8:31:37 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

Reading (or re-reading) Howard is something I always endorse.

I didn't mean to suggest that your criteria wouldn't make for a good game, or that many people wouldn't agree that they convey a "sword-and-sorcery" flavor. I'm sure that they would. I just don't believe any of those things is really necessary for the S&S subgenre. I personally believe (based on an extensive reading of fantasy literature) that the S&S subgenre has two distinguishing characteristics:

1) The protagonists are motivated by narrow personal concerns, and the stories are about those personal concerns (rather than abstract goals like saving the world).

2) The protagonists triumph through brains and brawn most of the time (rather than some gimmick like dropping a ring in a volcano).

As you may suppose, by my definition, AD&D itself is already an S&S game, and Greyhawk is an S&S setting; I certainly believe this is what Gary intended, given his stated distaste for "high fantasy", and I'm not a big fan of deconstructionism (which is, generally speaking, academic vultures picking at the bones of giants). The fact that Gary dropped orcs into the mix really doesn't seem that germane to me; honestly, the Picts as portrayed by Howard are practically orcs anyway.  AD&D characters are rogues on the make, they mostly kill what they meet with a sword (albeit sometimes a magical sword), and they can rise from mercenary adventurers to rulers (hey, just like Conan).  To me, that spells sword-and-sorcery adventure! - and no amount of humanoids, or flashy magic, or clerics, or good alignments, or plate mail*, or any of the other details that serve as sticking points for some people, can change that fact.

* - Seriously, this criticism, which I've seen a few times, seems very odd to me.  Even leaving aside the fact that Conan is wearing some kind of plate armor in "The Phoenix on the Sword" and "The Hour of the Dragon"... come on, it's not sword-and-sorcery if you have armor better than chain?  That's just ridiculously picky!

Ok but seriously pixies are the breaking point for me. If there are pixies then its not S&S! (Here's hoping there is no mention of pixies in REH

[Ghul]

Sept 6, 2013 16:54:05 GMT -6 mabon5127 said:

Ok but seriously pixies are the breaking point for me. If there are pixies then its not S&S! (Here's hoping there is no mention of pixies in REH

Unless it's a pixie stick full of powdered black lotus blossoms. Now THAT would be S&S!

[blackadder23]

Sept 6, 2013 16:54:05 GMT -6 mabon5127 said:

Here's hoping there is no mention of pixies in REH

Pixies or Pict-sies?

I think we're officially off-topic at this point.

[Ghul]

Here, at the Dark Corners of Role-Playing blog, there is a fantastic new review of Charnel Crypt of the Sightless Serpent:

darkcornersofrpging.blogspot.com/2013/10/charnel-crypt-of-sightless-serpent-from.html

[blackadder23]

Nice review! It never hurts to be compared to a Conan comic book - at least not when you're dealing with people of discriminating tastes.

[Ghul]

Another wonderful review at the blog, Dark Corners of Role-Playing. This time Taken from Dunwich is reviewed:

darkcornersofrpging.blogspot.com/2013/10/review-and-commentary-on-taken-from.html

[Ghul]

A new review of the game, by Venger Satanis:

www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/16/16000.phtml

[geoffrey]

Nov 18, 2013 15:01:09 GMT -6 Ghul said:

A new review of the game, by Venger Satanis:

www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/16/16000.phtml

That was a fun read. I particularly like the following: " I remember someone on a message board complaining about the scantily clad female. Whelp! Fool! This is a game of savage barbarians, infernal magic-users, and reavers hailing from beyond the north wind!"

[rabindranath72]

Sept 4, 2013 8:05:53 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

Sept 3, 2013 16:46:33 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I don't remember Conan ever running into a fantastic monster the likes of which he had ran into before. He kept fighting men, and giant snakes, and apes, but I do not remember him (for example) fighting more than one of the demon-things that he fought in "Beyond the Black River". It was a unique entity, the likes of which he had never fought before.

From "Beyond the Black River":

Balthus felt his scalp prickle. Neither man nor any beast that he had ever seen could have left that strange, monstrous, three-toed print, that was curiously combined of the bird and the reptile, yet a true type of neither. He spread his fingers above the print, careful not to touch it, and grunted explosively. He could not span the mark.

"What is it?" he whispered. "I never saw a beast that left a spoor like that."

"Nor any other sane man," answered Conan grimly. "It's a swamp demon – they're thick as bats in the swamps beyond Black River. You can hear them howling like d**ned souls when the wind blows strong from the south on hot nights."

So much for "unique"! The creature was part of a species that was "thick as bats in the swamps beyond Black River". And while it's true that Conan never met another one in the course of a published adventure, he was familiar enough with swamp demons to recognize their tracks. Not exactly a case of "what is this nameless thing!?!?"

But one of my favorite quotes (because of Conan's hilariously lackadaisical attitude) is from the end of "The Vale of Lost Women":

"A devil from the Outer Dark," [Conan] grunted. "Oh, they're nothing uncommon. They lurk thick as fleas outside the belt of light which surrounds this world. I've heard the wise men of Zamora talk of them. Some find their way to Earth, but when they do, they have to take on earthly form and flesh of some sort. A man like myself, with a sword, is a match for any amount of fangs and talons, infernal or terrestrial."

So "devils from the Outer Dark" are "nothing uncommon" and "thick as fleas". Again, it appears that such monsters were hardly rare, let alone "unique". And Conan just kills it with his sword and then shrugs it off: "Eh, a demon. Nothing to see here."

I'm certainly not trying to bust your chops.  But I'm always seeing these same statements - which I'm forced to call "canards" - about what is and isn't "sword-and-sorcery fantasy", and they just don't accord with my reading of the literature. Another example: you said (and others have similarly said) that S&S sorcerers should be limited in power compared to their AD&D counterparts. In "The Hour of the Dragon" a sorcerer (who earlier dropped a bunch of cliffs on Conan's army, killing thousands) is in the process of bringing an entire long-vanished nation back from the mists of time. I don't know about you, but as a DM I wouldn't allow even an AD&D wish to accomplish that! Certainly this was an uncommonly powerful sorcerer, but how common are 17th level magic-users in AD&D? Not very! And even they couldn't do such a thing. Meanwhile, literary "high fantasy" wizard Gandalf... lit some pinecones on fire, I think. If anything, I would argue that some people have the relative power of magic in "high fantasy" and "sword-and-sorcery" exactly backwards.

And frankly, I see nothing at all that suggests that Conan's contemporaries were incapable of crafting magic items, or that every magic item was unique. Can you point to something in a story that implies this? If not, and it isn't part of the literature... then what exactly makes you think these restrictions are necessary for a "sword-and-sorcery" flavor? Is this a case of Robert Howard "doing it wrong"?

Indeed. We had a similar discussion in a past thread, whereby I was disputing the claim that Lamentations of the Flame Princess does weird fantasy/sword & sorcery well.

Going to the sources, a few examples:

Howard: let's not forget ghouls, servants of Bit-Yakin, all the various lotus concoctions, Stygian fire etc.
Leiber: invisibles of Stardock, rat-people, rings which reduce the size of people, various sorcerous implements
Moorcock: Melniboneans, Clakar, Elenoin, various potions

So saying that "no generic monsters" and "no magic items" are some "hall-marks" of weird fantasy/sword & sorcery looks just like a straw argument at best, or lack of knowledge of the classics of the genre at worst (a third option being the designer being lazy.)

[Ynas Midgard]

[OFF]
LotFP's not including monsters and magic items, in my opinion, could be interpreted as a badly spelled out order to the DM to make up his own. Unfortunately, without guidelines, how one is supposed to do so?
[/OFF]

[rabindranath72]

There never was an order to actually USE the monsters and magic items in any version of the game. They are tools for the GM to use. I can't for the life of me understand how it's "better" to not give a GM tools. For people short on preparation time like myself, this makes or breaks a game, really. And in some cases, like AS&SH, the magic items and monsters are a perfect fit for the setting, so again, I don't see why one should not use them, considering that, as mentioned, the Weird and S&S literature is chock full of magic items and monsters. Stating the contrary is simply delusional.

[Ghul]

Nov 26, 2013 2:40:52 GMT -6 rabindranath72 said:

There never was an order to actually USE the monsters and magic items in any version of the game. They are tools for the GM to use. I can't for the life of me understand how it's "better" to not give a GM tools. For people short on preparation time like myself, this makes or breaks a game, really. And in some cases, like AS&SH, the magic items and monsters are a perfect fit for the setting, so again, I don't see why one should not use them, considering that, as mentioned, the Weird and S&S literature is chock full of magic items and monsters. Stating the contrary is simply delusional.

Exactly so. If LotFP Jim doesn't want to include monsters and magic items in his game, that's his prerogative; it really doesn't bother me. Of course, were I to run his game, I would probably go to my library of gaming resources and use someone else's lists. What I find annoying is when some gamers and game designers want to tell me (and every other gamer) what the S&S formula is supposed to be. As soon as they start defining the parameters, I stop paying attention, because I know they are either ignorant of the classics or simply repeating what someone else said on the internet.

[joseph]

To chime in briefly concerning non-unique monsters, I completely agree with the general consensus here. I have long been aware of REH and HPL's reuse of creatures, or simply implying that they are not so uncommon. I have only recently begun reading CAS in depth and have found similar implications..he repeatedly refers to certain female villains as lamias, has used two vampires, often mentions werewolves, and has included not a few satyrs...those just from my limited reading.

[Mjollnir]

The AD&D Monster Manual is what got me hooked on D&D in the first place. Monsters are cool. Lack of monsters is not a selling point in my view.

[Ghul]

In the interest of full disclosure, I share the good, the bad, and the lukewarm reviews of AS&SH whenever I get notified -- unless the review is completely ill-informed or downright rude and unprofessional.

This latest review is what I would call a lukewarm response, somewhat similar to Steve Winter's review several months ago, though not as d**ning. Like Steve Winter, this fellow was looking for something different for spells and magic items; he doesn't go as far as Winter in saying the game "fails" as a result of these perceived flaws. This fine fellow also does not like that subclasses are not balanced with each other (4 of one subclass type, 6 of another, etc.), and he feels they do not convey proper S&S mood (he wants a witch-hunter class, for example). He seems to like the setting and some of the mechanical components of the game. He gives the game 3 out of 5 stars.

AS&SH Review by The Rambling Role-Player