I was at Barnes and Noble today and picked up this: Howard Chaykin and Mike Mignola's Graphic Novel rendition of Fritz Leiber's Farhrd and Gray Mouser.

I think Mignola's artwork fits perfectly the whimsical yet darker-than-most-fantasy tone of Leiber's work. If you're a fan of Lankhmar, you should pick this up. It's a paperback reprint of the four issue miniseries produced in 1991 (for those of you who don't want to click the link).

But browsing through this (I read it before a couple years ago, in cheap electronic formats) I realized that I had no desire to roleplay or game in Leiber's Lankhmar. And that's not to say it's not a great place. In fact, quite the opposite. I hold the books (and this comic) in so high esteem, that I don't think I want to be mucking about in Leiber's creation, mostly because Lankhmar and Newhon belong, in a sort of way, to Fafhrd and the Mouser and having other characters trying to run around in that world seems like messing around in their kitchen, so to speak.

That might not make a lot of sense, but the purpose of this post is to ask...

Are there any books, movies, comics, cartoons, etc, that you refuse to run/play a game in because you have too MUCH respect for the original property? That you know you can never do the awesomeness of it justice? Or that you feel you have nothing more to add to its grandeur?

Yes, any book or film I've ever actually enjoyed.

Wraeththu? :mischief:

Seriously, I'm not big on adaptations in the first place. Especially as I am primarily a GM and like the freedom of expression that comes with having a blank slate. I feel hemmed in by exhaustively covered franchises. I'd typically rather make a homage and go my own way.

No, I don't think there's anything I wouldn't try . . .
There are, however, some properties that are very tempting--having all the elements of a great game--in which the stories just don't work the way game stories ever do. I would be disappointed and frustrated that the games wouldn't ever work the way I would want them to--the way they do in the stories. At the front of my mind is Grimjack.

i couldn't think of anything.  

part of the fun is starting out with a particular setting, then seeing what the players do with, or to, it.

Conversely, I suppose we could also list the properties that just a few pages/minutes/whatever in, we KNEW we'd be gaming in our version of that world.

For me, the quicket I was ever sold on an idea that I just HAD to roleplay in, is Michael Oeming's Mice Templar.

Quote from: droogYes, any book or film I've ever actually enjoyed.

Ditto.

Pretty much anything by Gene Wolfe. The worlds and situations he presents tend to exist for the purpose of giving his protagonists something meaningful to experience, and adapting them for a whole bunch of different protagonists would make the settings lose something. Especially those of his worlds - like the Urth of the Book of the New Sun - which we only experience through the eyes of a particularly distinctive protagonist.

Well, generally I believe liscenced properties in general kill gaming companies.

I think I agree with stu2000 in that there are properties that I really enjoy and would like to game in, but where it would be hard to recreate the experience in an RPG.  As such, they would be ones I would stay away from.  An example of this would be something like Lost, in that it's a show I love but have no idea how to run a decent RPG that captures what is so cool about the show.

Quite some time ago, I read about the idea that a lot of crappy movies/books/etc. would make great RPGs, but that a lot of great ones would make lousy RPGs.  I think there is some truth to that, though of course it is not an ironclad rule.

Not out of respect, but I just don't run something we've seen done-not exactly anyways.

New Sun is definitely a tall order. Ditto Lyonesse and Vance in general, beyond the puns and fancy hats. The more a book depends on mood, description and language, the less it's translatable into RPGs, which ultimately depend on action.

But yes, making up your own shit is just as well.

Shit films, comics and books often make for excellent gaming.

For me it's more like, why would I want to game in a licensed setting?

That said, I'd be more inclined to use Nehwon than Middle Earth, not because I like one more than the other, but because Nehwon to me has a quality of not "belonging" to the main characters. Faf and Mouser are just two guys wandering around and making the best of it, as far as I can tell; there are even plausibly "other adventurers" (though most of them aren't as skilled or lucky) such as Fafhrd's occasional ghoul girlfriend, the two best thieves in Lankhmar, and the respective Deaths of Fafhrd and the Mouser from "The Curse of the Smalls and the Stars".

Middle Earth on the other hand basically can't be excised from Tolkien's story (unless you engage in some radical revisionism) without turning into, for me, "just another setting". Or I suppose you could have "evil" rise up one more time, but that for me is boring and tends to undermine the existing stories.

Quote from: KazAre there any books, movies, comics, cartoons, etc, that you refuse to run/play a game in because you have too MUCH respect for the original property? That you know you can never do the awesomeness of it justice? Or that you feel you have nothing more to add to its grandeur?

No, there is no setting I wouldn't touch if I like it.