Contrary to OSR claims, D&D was never very low fantasy

I generated an image of Conan standing with Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Or, if you like, Fafnir and the Black Rat, two characters from the Marvel Comics line of Conan who were obviously meant to be Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stand-ins. Marvel Comics Conan ran from 1970 to 1993 and was one of Marvel's best selling titles through the 70s... although because it was licensed, it may not have been necessarily one of their most profitable. (As an aside, I find it curious that G. I. Joe was Marvel's top selling title through much of the 80s. Neither, of course, is in the Marvel Universe, nor are they superhero related at all. It's funny to me that superheroes are so closely associated with comic books to learn later that a sword and sorcery comic and a military action soap opera were the, or at least among the best selling Marvel titles throughout my entire childhood and youth.) I like a lot of that good old-fashioned sword & sorcery. I'm reading, for the first time although I've owned the book for probably fifteen years, the Solomon Kane collection, and I've got the Del Rey Conan and Kull collections out again. I read the Conan ones years ago, and I dabbled with Kull, but never finished the whole collection. I'm also reading some other sword & sorcery in short order; the James Silke Horned Helmet series. James Silke just died last year at the age of 93. but he was famous for his work in Hollywood and comics. He was a co-writer for The Wild Bunch, for instance, and wrote the screenplay for the Raiders of the Lost Ark semi-parodic rip-off King Solomon's Mines loosely based off of H. Rider Haggard's character Allan Quatermain and played by Richard Chamberlain. Who also just died last year at the age of 90. I didn't realize that until looking it up. I also didn't realize that he was gay. Sigh.

Anyway, tangent aside, sword & sorcery is great. The OSR and old-school D&D players in general talk it up a lot and claim that D&D of the OSR variety, or at least prior to WotC takeover of the brand in the latest 90s and the launch of their new, derivative version in 2000, resembled sword & sorcery quite a bit. I don't think so. Gary Gygax may have famously thought that everyone should want to play a human fighter like Conan or Aragorn or something like that, but the rules of even early D&D didn't work that way. TV Tropes, discussing the long-acknowledged "linear fighter, quadratic (or even exponential) wizard" problem in D&D and many other RPGs too, for that matter, says the following, slightly edited for format and clarity by me:

This isn't just a sour grapes complaint against weak wizards or a lack of competitive balance throughout the game, but can be a deliberate thematic choice.First off, is the idea that warriors hit a development ceiling at some point. They hit the limits of human (or near-human) ability and can't bend physics any farther. If you don't have magic, how can you hope to defeat, say, an intangible ghost or a Master of Illusion? Basically, warriors can only be so fantastic, so even as they improve, those improvements mean less.

Secondly, in such a setting, it may be very difficult to even get started as a mage, requiring some sort of inherent gift or immense study. Additionally your novice talents may not save you if trouble comes too soon, further thinning the herd. Meanwhile, billions of people throughout history have learned how to use weapons, and conscription armies are based on the theory that any able-bodied person could do it. Thus, the Conans and Beowulfs have the run of the place through both numbers and ease of recruitment, while the mages are fewer and take longer to achieve results, but aim for greater profits.

Thirdly, there's more than a bit of wish fulfillment here. Gamers, and by extension game designers, tend to be nerds. The notion that a wizard (generally something of a brainy bookworm) may start out weaker than the "dumb muscle", but surpass them entirely in the endgame, proving that knowledge is the ultimate power? This account holds a lot of inherent appeal to them.

If this trope is not desired by the game designers, or enough complaints convince them to change things, there are ways to limit the awesomeness of wizards. These include restrictions on magic itself, the two classic examples being the Mana mechanic or the more restrictive Vancian Magic. Both of these serve to cap how often a wizard can cast spells. Preventing casting spells while wearing armor is another, though this is often partially countered by providing a range of protective magics that work much like normal armor only better, but of course for a limited time. Other restrictions also exist; a common one is simply to make the wizard fragile. Others involve sanity and corruption systems, or making the casting of a spell a tactically debilitating act.

Yeah, I never bought into this. I may have been a bit of a nerd myself growing up, and less inclined towards athletic pursuits, but that doesn't mean that I was just a bookworm. (Just that I liked to read!) I also played outside a lot and hiking, camping and backpacking became big hobbies of mine even at a relatively young age. I never felt that kind of resentment that a lot of bookish types do when young against the popular, athletic guys, because I could kinda sorta hold my own socially with them, and I didn't care about trying to be like them, or feel much jealousy towards their own social status vs my own. In addition, I was always a fan of swashbuckling historical action that didn't even have wizards, of course. I like Captain Blood, Robin Hood, Scaramouche and The Three Musketeers, especially the one that has Richard Chamberlain as Aramis, of course (see how I pulled him back in there?) I always thought these swashbuckling duelists and fighters were more interesting characters than smug, gamma-like magic-users. And people who claim to really like Howard and Leiber, but who like to play wizards, sorcerers or other varieties of magic-users kind of confuse me like they allegedly confused Gary Gygax. Magic-users were either villains and enemies to Conan, like Thoth-Amon or Kulan Gath, or they were mysterious and creepy plot devices to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, like Ningauble of the Seven Eyes and Sheelba of the Eyeless Face. Gandalf is maybe the closest archetype to a regular "PC Wizard" in the foundational literature, but he doesn't really work either, because of course, he's not even a mortal. Wizard isn't a profession, like character class is supposed to be, it was a class of being. 

Other works maybe have wizards that are more down to earth, like The Face in the Frost, which is an under-rated story that many forget from the Appendix N, which is the only place that I've ever seen it mentioned; either directly there, or in discussions of the Appendix N. While Leiber, Howard and Tolkien obviously have vast fandoms that are unrelated to D&D, I don't think The Face in the Frost would be remembered at all if it hadn't been listed by Gygax, and I'm not sure how much it's remembered even now even though he did. 

Other foundational works had more jockish, athletic fighter types as the iconic characters to be based on. Poul Anderson's works cited in the Appendix N usually feature typical warrior-heroes. Fletcher Pratt and Michael Moorcock, of course, wrote differently, but even Elric's supposed sorcerous ways are usually overstated. He had a bunch of deals with demons and gods, but especially after acquiring Stormbringer, he was mostly a sword-wielding warrior-anti-hero himself. 

In any case, the fact that D&D didn't replicate that kind of setting, and put magic-users (the title that it preferred for many years) front and center kind of belies the idea that it replicates the stories that its fans say that it replicates. My earliest complaint about D&D, and I made this complaint as early as the mid-80s, is that it didn't feel anything much at all like the stories that I was reading, especially stuff by Lloyd Alexander, J. R R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs, the ones that I was most familiar with at that age. Not only that, the quote above from TV Tropes, about wizards being a kind of wish fulfillment Mary Sue. That kind of stuff pings on some kind of cringe radar that I have, and makes me dislike it automatically. I have a subconscious aversion to that kind of ego-stroking, and it bugs me. One could argue that characters like Conan, John Carter or Tarzan are a different kind of wish-fulfilment Mary Sue, I suppose, but they don't feel like it to me. And characters more like Aragorn are heroic but believable. Conan and Tarzan are superlative; prototypes for superheroes in a sense, whereas Aragorn is a much more traditional hero. But in any case, it's a combination of their background and their dedication to the perfection of their craft that makes them superlative, not just the "just because" secret king special boy fantasy of women and gammas. I suppose that's the root of my dissatisfaction with the trope, although I wouldn't have even had the vocabulary to analyze or diagnose it for many, many years. And that's where the wizard character classes, and the implications of wizards in the setting turn me off; they feel like gamma secret king fantasies.

So yeah; one of the key developments that I always lean into when designing my own settings is making magic less predictable, less powerful, and less morally neutral—it's creepy, scary, and usually evil, as well as dangerous. Heroes may dabble, especially if they're darker, more compromised heroes or anti-heroes, but the only really truly powerful wizards are villains, or even supervillains in the setting. Why? Well, as noted above, I dislike the whole trope of powerful, heroic mages as a gamma Mary Sue fantasy, but also because it's the only paradigm that matches the actual sword & sorcery low fantasy source material that D&D was supposedly built on. The older editions of D&D didn't do it. Most OSR games don't do it, and if they do, they do so by rejecting original D&D paradigms that were common for decades. If anything, more modern versions of D&D have tried to introduce more parity between the power of martial and magic classes. That doesn't mean that they're better low fantasy emulators than older D&D, but it does mean that they at least recognize and mitigate one of the many reasons that D&D of any version was never really a very good low fantasy game in the first place.