We all know that, Bradford et al. have driven home the point tirelessly, but IIRC we haven't discussed in detail how come it's valid.

What are the elements of a crappy novel or movie that work in a game but fizzle in the source? More importantly, why is it that they do work at all rather than fizzle as well?

I'm not talking merely about straight-up licenses BTW.

Mainly because ham acting is fun, and in a few hours of rolling dice and eating cheetos you usually can't manage much more than cliches.

And bad novels and movies are often bad because they have ham acting (or otherwise stupid characters) and lots of cliches.

A friend of mine INSISTED on bad novels being way better for gaming than good ones. he even held panels on what he called "Verspielungen". The argument was based on the assumption (and experience), that cheesy stuff isn´t that cheesy in RPGs anymore. And that the players actions remove the idiocy from idiotic plot constructs. And that the conflicts of bad novels are also worthwhile oftentimes, only the solutions suck. But that´s what the players are there for.
Also, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

I participated in some of his "Verspielungen", the one on "Cachalot" and "The Practice Effect" were particularly noteworthy.

Quote from: SettembriniAlso, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

A most excellent point.

In general, your friend seems to be right on the money. A bad novel/movie offers less creative resistance to creative appropriation. In part that means its elements (stereotypes, tropes) are more easily extracted, altered, and combined with others.

Obviously, AD&D leaps to mind as the supreme example, although not all its sources were bad.

Quote from: SettembriniA friend of mine INSISTED on bad novels being way better for gaming than good ones. he even held panels on what he called "Verspielungen". The argument was based on the assumption (and experience), that cheesy stuff isn´t that cheesy in RPGs anymore. And that the players actions remove the idiocy from idiotic plot constructs. And that the conflicts of bad novels are also worthwhile oftentimes, only the solutions suck. But that´s what the players are there for.
Also, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

I participated in some of his "Verspielungen", the one on "Cachalot" and "The Practice Effect" were particularly noteworthy.

Your friend's opinion has merit, but let's remember that what is good for a novel is not necessarily good for a RPG, and what is good for an RPG is not necessarily good for a novel.

I have no idea how this nonsense started. I suspect it was when TSR began churning out it's fantasy novels and the scorn heaped by some on them. In the old days it was all about emulating Howard, Lieber and Tolkien amongst others. For SF you had Heinlein , Asimov, Herbert and the various other SF writers.

Nobody thought their games emulated "good" novels or even that their games were some how cheesy....unless they wanted their games to be cheesy. And since fantasy movies were more or less non existent you had a few SF movies to choose from - Star Wars (space opera but still), 2001, Bladerunner....

Maybe it's a geek thing I'm clueless about. Needless to say this by Sett:

QuoteAlso, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

Sounds cool and all, but in reality means nothing. And it reeks of elitism.

What's a bad novel and does he seriuosly think that it's fans (who are most probably gamers and choose to emulate it) are not emotionally engaged with the material ?

Regards,
David R

I'm with David R here. My players have had a blast from good inspiration as well as bad. It doesn't matter in the least. The contention that bad sources are better is wrong. Bad sources and good sources can be equally engaging. What matters in this case is the group, not the source.

-clash

Here's why I think the point often comes up: if you take inspiration from a really kick-ass source, and end up with something less enjoyable than the source (and the better the source is, the more likely this is - you really think 5 guys improvising and rolling dice at a table are going to outdo, say, Star Wars or Macbeth or Conan?), it feels like a failure. On the other hand, if you take inspiration from cruddy source material, and end up with something more enjoyable, it feels like a success.

Quote from: David RI have no idea how this nonsense started.

I have a hunch that it has to do with people comparing the results at the table to a well written/exectuted book/movies/whatever and saying "well that game session didn't measure up". Becoming self conscious about not churning a duplicate in quality [most of the time?] could be a source of it? :shrug: Silly given that gaming is just a rough first pass and "classics" hardly spring from the mind of the creator full formed and polished. EDIT: D'oh, Warthur beat me to it.


P.S. Ironically many "bad" books often reek of said "wankery" and overwrought "emo" and such. Maybe a lot of people are looking for or expect the same in their gaming? :eek: :deflated:

Quote from: WarthurHere's why I think the point often comes up: if you take inspiration from a really kick-ass source, and end up with something less enjoyable than the source (and the better the source is, the more likely this is - you really think 5 guys improvising and rolling dice at a table are going to outdo, say, Star Wars or Macbeth or Conan?), it feels like a failure. On the other hand, if you take inspiration from cruddy source material, and end up with something more enjoyable, it feels like a success.

We emulate everything from Shakespeare to Big Trouble in Little China to Hornblower to Cherryh and back again. We almost never fail. The games rock, we have a blast, and somehow things work. It's the group.

-clash

Quote from: DwightI have a hunch that it has to do with people comparing the results at the table to a well written/exectuted book/movies/whatever and saying "well that game session didn't measure up". Becoming self conscious about not churning a duplicate in quality [most of the time?] could be a source of it? :shrug: Silly given that gaming is just a rough first pass and "classics" hardly spring from the mind of the creator full formed and polished. EDIT: D'oh, Warthur beat me to it.


P.S. Ironically many "bad" books often reek of said "wankery" and overwrought "emo" and such. Maybe a lot of people are looking for or expect the same in their gaming? :eek: :deflated:

Hi Dwight:

Maybe our group has a blast because we don't consider the endproduct to be a story to compare with the source? We compare the fun of the doing, the experience. Playing in the world of Hornblower kicks utter ass over reading or watching it, no matter the story that results. That's a byproduct of our play, nice to have but really just gravy.

-clash

I think it just means "well-defined, uncomplicated external conflicts - like those found in bad books and movies - make better gaming sessions than the sorts of complex, nuanced situations you might expect in other types of literature."

There's a germ of truth there, but like most things it falls apart if you try and follow the analogy too far. There's also an assumption about good and bad books/movies that doesn't necessarily stand up.

Ned

This is actually JDCorley's Law of Licensed Gaming: "Bad source material means good gaming".

It does not say anything about good source material meaning bad gaming, good gaming, or anything. It also doesn't say that good gaming means bad source material. So just throw that nonsense out, it is not implied at all and you are stupid if you think it does.

Here is the rationale. It's the same explanation I gave to the virtuous young hippies at story-games, now I give it to the he-man woman-haters here at Therpgsite.

1 - Good source material (film, books, comics, etc.) combines characters, plot, setting, and presentation in such a way as to be compelling and interesting.

2 - Contrariwise, bad source material has some element on that list that doesn't work, either in isolation or in combination with other elements on that list.

3 - When you game, you are devastating, destroying, rending, blasting, and eradicating some part of the original work and replacing it with something of your own. (Since the work is the sum of its parts, actually you are destroying the whole thing, but we'll pretend not to notice this for now.)

4 - If you destroy something bad, that improves the overall quality.


Now, I usually follow this up by saying "For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a rotten TV show, but is a kickass gaming setting." and everyone spends 50 pages yelling at me about what a great TV show Buffy was. The nice thing, though, is that the principle still works no matter what properties you think are good and which you think are bad, so long as you are the one doing the demolishing and adapting.

Quote from: flyingmiceMaybe our group has a blast because we don't consider the endproduct to be a story to compare with the source?

Why is it always about 'story' with you? I was thinking about the prose and dialog. But sure, I suppose that's another thing you could worry about comparing.

P.S. Frankly I just get a game with solid mechanics that fit the game/genre we want to play,  stick with the mechanics, and make sure to keep feeding conflict in an appropriate tone, and any 'story' to be had works out. In my experience it is when somebody has the plot already mapped and written in their head and unnaturally fights the rules and the other players to get there that you have problems with plot. *shrug*

Quote from: DwightWhy is it always about 'story' with you? I was thinking about the prose and dialog. But sure, I suppose that's another thing you could worry about comparing.

P.S. Frankly I just get a game with solid mechanics that fit the game/genre we want to play,  stick with the mechanics, and make sure to keep feeding conflict in an appropriate tone, and any 'story' to be had works out. In my experience it is when somebody has the plot already mapped and written in their head and unnaturally fights the rules and the other players to get there that you have problems with plot. *shrug*

Sounds pretty much like my group!

But I meant story=plot+dialog+prose, not just plot.

When my players talk about old games, they bring up stuff like "Remember the time we brought that headless body into Captain Morgan's office in Port Royal and dumped it on his floor, and instantly got into that argument in character about whether the corpse was mutilated or not just because it was headless, until Captain Morgan screamed 'This is a public office, not an argument chamber!'" If you were there, it was absolutely hilarious. It doesn't translate well to plot+dialog+prose.

-clash