You know what irritates me? RPG fiction in rulebooks which depict characters doing stuff which is actually impossible (or at least totally unsupported) under the rules. I'm a bit more forgiving of standalone novels - they need a little poetic licence, after all - but if you're using space in a rulebook for fiction, it's presumably intended to give me some idea of what I can do with the game. If I can't replicate the action in the story using the rules you give me, you've screwed up.
What are the most horrific examples of this sort of thing people have encountered?
I hear you. That annoys the crap out of me too. I can't think of any examples of hand though.
I run into that problem as a publisher, specifically for adventures, so I have to either modify the text, invent a new rule, or use what I call "relics," which basically allow someone to do things beyond the rules.
I for one, am GLAD that Batlletech fiction is not modelled after the rules. It´s better for the game...
SLA Industries - the fictional adventure example of the book was entirely contradictory to the rules - discounting the whole 'it wall all a dream factor' the game fiction reads amazing the rules just don't support it at all.
Few examples are when they stated out Carnivorous Pigs, Manchines, Headhunters, Carrion or pretty much anything else. They just weren't scary at all once you compared their stats.
All in-game fiction contains varying levels of suck. I've never seen a book with in-game original fiction that was worth the space it was written on.
RPGPundit
I'm with Pundit on this one.
Quote from: RPGPunditAll in-game fiction contains varying levels of suck. I've never seen a book with in-game original fiction that was worth the space it was written on.
RPGPundit
Yep.
If the people who write in-game fiction were any good at it, they'd be writing proper fiction and having it published.
Quote from: jrientsI'm with Pundit on this one.
I've got one foot on this bus.
The only time I've seen game fiction not entirely suck was in the now defunct
Star Wars Adventure Journal. The story was about 1/3rd actual story, 1/3rd artwork of various quality, and 1/3rd game information about the stuff in the story. That worked for me.
Shadowrun Novels are pretty bad. Written mostly by authors who are unframiliar with the Game Mechanics.
Yikes!
QM
To be fair, often I feel the failure is in the game mechanics more than the fiction. For comparison, there are a lot of games based on established material (i.e. Conan, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Buffy, etc.) where the rules fail to emulate the fiction to various degrees -- and in those cases we tend to fault the mechanics.
Game fiction is typical geeksploitation.
It's bad because it doesn't have to be good. It doesn't have to compete in the marketplace. Geeks will buy it anyway.
As to the shit in the rulebooks, it's always a waste of space. Short blurbs, etc, are far more evocative, and less obviously a case of "writer had to find some way to fill this page."
Al Bruno's stuff for All Flesh Must Be Eaten is good.
Otherwise, yup, it all sucks.
I liked the Dan Abnett stuff in the WFRP book.
The T4 novel has to win some kind of prize for this one. The far trader in it has a force field of the startrek variety and IRRC a meson gun.
Quote from: TheQuestionManShadowrun Novels are pretty bad. Written mostly by authors who are unframiliar with the Game Mechanics.
Yikes!
QM
Most of them are quite bad, yes. The exception seem to be Nigel Findley's books, as he was one of the best SR authors.
I totally agree that Nigel Findley was the greatest Shadowrun Author, but then he died damn it.
Michael Stackpole is the other.
Cheers
QM
This kind of fiction should be cleansed. With fire. The only game fiction I can stand is the examples of play in which, by the narrated development of the facts you find an in-´game explanation of the rolls and so on. Everything is garbage.
I've found very little fiction printed in sourcebooks that was of any import or significance at all. It's served its purpose - to elucidate tone, flesh out possibilities, show how it's done - but not been literature or or even necessarily literate! Exceptions abound, in my experience mostly in older FASA products, where some of the fiction, while not necessarily well-written from an editorial perspective, not only served its purpose of illuminating the game world, but also raised interesting psychological questions or philosophical issues. [And often, way back when, in the form of Shadowtalk and Earthdawn's marginalia, served also to make the world more real-seeming and varied and complex.] Hell, as far as literary inspiration goes, Shadowrun's in-sourcebook fiction has the distinction of being the only in-game fiction I'm aware of that spawned a major motion picture.
However, the in-sourcebook material is often unrelated or of vastly differing quality to published novels in the game's setting, some of which over the years have been, if not profound in a literary sense, at least enjoyable pulp. I'm an escapist in my reading-for-pleasure, so when I'm not choking down histories of the chimney or mathematical arguments for the length of birds' tails, I often [used to; I find I've little time lately to read] read Battletech novels or even Shadowrun novels, and especially Earthdawn novels. I've even choked down a TSR novel or two in my day [okay, 20 or so]. And no, I've never read any of it that transcended that invisible line into genius, but much of it did precisely what it was intended to: please me for three hours.
Quote from: JongWKMost of them are quite bad, yes. The exception seem to be Nigel Findley's books, as he was one of the best SR authors.
I preferred Nyx Smith.
I rep Tom Dowd and Caroline Spector.
The intro fiction in the Ars Magica 5E book is not only bad (like all game fiction), but it has little to do with actual Ars play. It isn't even a cheesy promo for Ars gameplay; it feels like it was just thrown in because a fictional intro is expected these days. So it's inaccurate in the sense that it isn't about a typical Ars session at all.