Quote from: Omega;1077815In this you are wrong on so many many points.

1: Few regard these novels as bad. In fact they sell fairly damn well and a few have hit best seller marks. Think Dragonlance or one of the Drizzt books?

Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.

But in contrast the Dragonlance novels get fair reviews on goodreads.com .

Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.

They sold well enough to have kept TSR afloat for a long time. So whatever you or I think of them. They were a success.

Before you skewer me. I hate Dragonlance with a firey passion. The only time I ever ran the world of Krynn in a AD&D 2nd Edition game. It resulted in Krynn being reduced to an asteroid field. While the PCs watched in horror as it happened. As they looked back through the gate they just fled through.

My one Forgotten Realms novel series I was absolutely in love with was The Finder's Stone Trilogy. I loved it. And I still own it.

And don't get me started on Drizzt. I absolutely loath that character. Disgusting Mary Sue that he is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.

And yet, two of their main authors have returned to Forgotten Realms to rewrite it back to their liking.  And given how popular they were during their heyday, I'd say you're wrong.  As usual when it comes to modern D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078108And yet, two of their main authors have returned to Forgotten Realms to rewrite it back to their liking.  And given how popular they were during their heyday, I'd say you're wrong.  As usual when it comes to modern D&D.

All that 'best seller' means is that it sells 'well', not that the quality is great. The great thing about game fiction is that you have a near instant group of fans because of the game connection, plus they become influencers to other fantasy readers.

I read my share of game fiction, and it is pretty uneven - likely more so than the fantasy genre in general. But where they may lack almost entirely in literary substance, some can be entertaining. Sort of like eating caramel corn or Disney sequels of the 90s.

I'd agree that some game fiction can be pretty bad, but I've also read some really excellent D&D fiction (the dark sun novels spring to mind, although my love of the setting may be partly to blame there...)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1078008Yeah, they're bestsellers in the genre of trash fantasy. Harlequin romances can also be bestsellers.

Shakespeare was a trashy, bawdy playwright who was considered only somewhat talented in his time.

His work also sold like hotcakes.

100 years from now, the trash is probably going to be better remembered than some of the things we think are artistic. Which one has more artistic merit?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078734Shakespeare was a trashy, bawdy playwright who was considered only somewhat talented in his time.

His work also sold like hotcakes.

100 years from now, the trash is probably going to be better remembered than some of the things we think are artistic. Which one has more artistic merit?

Anything that Pundy says it does, duh.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078734Shakespeare was a trashy, bawdy playwright who was considered only somewhat talented in his time.

His work also sold like hotcakes.

100 years from now, the trash is probably going to be better remembered than some of the things we think are artistic. Which one has more artistic merit?

That's more of a commentary on what people currently think has artistic merit, than an argument for the merits of RPG novels.  

For any given work, it can be perceived all over the map in its day.  The things that last can sometimes be recognized.  I don't know if I'd have recognized the merit in Shakespeare if I'd been alive then, but having recognized it now, I can tell you this:  There aren't a lot of passages in RPG novels that will be quoted 100 years from now.

Sturgeon's law on 90% trash is overall.  It's a lot higher than 90% in some categories.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078749Anything that Pundy says it does, duh.

...I'm not sure I'm that salty towards the Pundit (or anyone here, even Brad).

Quote from: Steven MitchellThere aren't a lot of passages in RPG novels that will be quoted 100 years from now.

I wouldn't be 100% certain of that. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still mention of Drizz't (or however you spell that) and the works of Weis & Hickman. Not as Shakespeares, but maybe as Kyd or a Marston. Just from the sheer number of them sold. (They're definitely not high quality work.)

Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own where history is concerned.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078848...I'm not sure I'm that salty towards the Pundit (or anyone here, even Brad).

It's not salt. Pundit is well known for having strong opinions about most topics.  The fact that his opinions are inconsistent compared to what he states, is part of the fun.  I have nothing against the guy, I don't know him well enough to have any strong opinions on him.  So all I can do is go after his opinions and statements, which as I stated are highly inconsistent.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1078848I wouldn't be 100% certain of that. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still mention of Drizz't (or however you spell that) and the works of Weis & Hickman. Not as Shakespeares, but maybe as Kyd or a Marston. Just from the sheer number of them sold. (They're definitely not high quality work.)

Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own where history is concerned.

As much as I hate the Drizzle, I can't deny that he was the entry point for a lot of D&D players in the 80's.

I think I gave Pundit the suggestion to make a post/video on this topic as a comment on his blog a few weeks back.  Obviously the thoughts are all his, and his insight that games are more for creating something like virtual history than story are spot on.  The "Story game" revolution didn't pan out, but clearly there is SOME kind of relationship between RPGs and story.  I was pondering this the other day in my aqua-meditation chamber, also known as the shower, and I came up with something.  I'm still puzzling this out, so please consider this a work in process.

The "story game" revolution hasn't worked out, and RPGs don't produce story in the same way that a novel or a film does, but at the same time we can't really say that RPGs have NOTHING to do with a "good story".  When we look back at RPG sessions or campaigns that were really compelling and interesting, we are almost always captured by some kind of narrative that took shape.  Real life is the same way.  We're always contextualizing our experiences into a narrative of some kind.  This lead me to conclude that RPGs do in fact produce narrative or story, but the same way that real-life produces story - as an emergent phenomenon. More accurately, RPGs produce narratives - plural, and it is the goal of RPGs to EXPERIENCE the emergence of these narratives through historical development.  If you'll forgive a metaphor: RPG playing isn't cake buying, or cake eating.  It's cake BAKING.  

A single RPG can produce as many slightly different but overlapping narratives as there are people at the table.  An attempt to produce a story - single, as a single coherent emotional arc, is actually a reduction of complexity, which is why so called "story games" are not an improvement.  "History", that is to say a sequence of willed actions by characters, presents the body of facts from which the various narratives of the game can be extrapolated.  The published game, as a rule-set, provides the world-model from which history can emerge.  The rule set can model a particular kind of world, so rules DO in fact matter, but only as a foundation for developing a certain kind of "history" or play, which then allow for stories to emerge organically.  

I'm calling this my layer cake theory. Each layer depends on the proceeding, but the proceeding layer depends on the subsequent for its fulfillment.
-- emergent stories --
depend on
-- a shared organic history of play --
which depends on
-- a coherent world-model --

Story games fail as satisfying RPGs because they sacrifice a coherent world-model in an attempt to force one coherent narrative.  4e and the entire subset of "WoW on a table" games are more like traditional RPGs in that they allow for emergent narrative based on shared play-history, but weight the wrong part because they look at the rule set as self referential, rather than existing for the sake of the other layers.  So called "broken or incoherent" game systems remain quite popular because, while their world-model is messy, they do the "layer cake" thing fairly well, which is the actual goal of RPG play.

Quote from: OmSwaOperations;1078715I'd agree that some game fiction can be pretty bad, but I've also read some really excellent D&D fiction (the dark sun novels spring to mind, although my love of the setting may be partly to blame there...)

I have at least three of the Dark Sun books but never finished the second one. Something about the story and characters just did not appeal to me. On the other hand I did overall like the Spelljammer novels. Though occasionally things seemed to start or end abruptly, or a character would vanish in a fight.

Quote from: Brendan;1079976The "story game" revolution hasn't worked out, and RPGs don't produce story in the same way that a novel or a film does, but at the same time we can't really say that RPGs have NOTHING to do with a "good story".  When we look back at RPG sessions or campaigns that were really compelling and interesting, we are almost always captured by some kind of narrative that took shape.

Quote from: Brendan;1079976Story games fail as satisfying RPGs because they sacrifice a coherent world-model in an attempt to force one coherent narrative.  4e and the entire subset of "WoW on a table" games are more like traditional RPGs in that they allow for emergent narrative based on shared play-history, but weight the wrong part because they look at the rule set as self referential, rather than existing for the sake of the other layers.  So called "broken or incoherent" game systems remain quite popular because, while their world-model is messy, they do the "layer cake" thing fairly well, which is the actual goal of RPG play.

This is interesting, but I'd suggest not thinking of less-popular options as failed or wrong. There are people who like story games, and there are people who like 4E, plus people who like a lot of other less-popular game lines, from the OSR to Amber Diceless to Pendragon to Gloomhaven. If you dismiss out anyone except the most popular set of players, I think you'll create a theory that is less useful - because most people will differ from the norm about something.

Quote from: Brendan;1079976A single RPG can produce as many slightly different but overlapping narratives as there are people at the table.  An attempt to produce a story - single, as a single coherent emotional arc, is actually a reduction of complexity, which is why so called "story games" are not an improvement.  "History", that is to say a sequence of willed actions by characters, presents the body of facts from which the various narratives of the game can be extrapolated.  The published game, as a rule-set, provides the world-model from which history can emerge.  The rule set can model a particular kind of world, so rules DO in fact matter, but only as a foundation for developing a certain kind of "history" or play, which then allow for stories to emerge organically.  

Truth is stranger than fiction--in part because fiction cannot be that strange and then accepted as a story.  On the other hand, truth is also often filled with events that don't make a story, even at the most basic level.  That is, a "story" is a retelling of the actions of two or more entities in conflict.  ("I got up this morning.  Was awake for some time.  Went to bed."  The "conflict" camp, of which I'm a part, says that is a narrative, but not a "story".)

Thus, recounting the events of an RPG session are inherently somewhat more story-like than reality, because we deliberately minimize or even skip many of the events that have no conflict.  It's about the same as if you were going to tell a story based on real-life events, didn't have a particular set of events in mind, and then applied a preliminary filter to cut out the very obvious non-story stuff first.  You still might have some left that don't make a very satisfying story:  "I got up.  Went into the dungeon.  Fell in a pit.  Died.  The end."