Can novels make or break a setting for you?

[WayneLigon]

Hmm. On one hand, if the settings were equally good and I could only get one, I might well choose the one with the novels. Not because of the novels per se, but because it indicates that the publisher intends to spend resources on the setting and not let it be just one more product.

A good novel or series of stories can make a setting attractive to me. A bad series will not nessesarily turn me away from a setting, but I've only read very few setting related novels.

The Arcana Unearthed anthology really gave me a better feel for that setting. I could do a much better job as a GM for that setting for having read it. Same thing for Nigel Findley's Shadowrun books; those were the books that finally gave me a sense of what living in the Shadowrun world was really like. I've been told that the Baker bokos for Eberron are good; I'll probably try them soon, as we're going to be playing in an Eberron game in a month or so.

 

[Morrus]

The Dragonlance novels got me into the setting. I never really enjoyed the setting, though; however, at 12 years old or whatever I was, I enjoyed the books.

I can't read them now. My tastes have matured! And I don't think I've ever made it all the way thorugh a Forgotten Realms novel (actually - no, I read Homeland; couldn't face any other of the Drizzt books, though).

 

[Wombat]

I've found nearly all RPG Fiction to be really sub-par.

Yep.

And the same can be said for tv/movie "related" fiction as well.

A good gaming setting does not really need novels. On the other hand, a good novel (very, very rare as they are) can enhance it.

More often, would prefer the other way around -- a set of good novels that someone with real knowledge of both the writer and game mechanics (only slightly less rare than good rpg fiction) turns into a game setting.

 

[Umbran]

Only if the original campaign setting material was insufficiently evocative. If the authors of the setting were not sufficiently clear as to what flavor they'd been aiming at, and novels more clearly elucidate that flavor, this can win me over to a setting. Of course, that also means the original setting material wasn't all that grand...

 

[XO]

Ouch!

I've found nearly all RPG Fiction to be really sub-par. With the exception of a couple of titles by the late Nigel Findlay, I can't recall a piece of RPG fiction that I thought was even as good as the "Girl with a Harp on the Cover" fantasy title of the week.Streams of Silver? Come on.

You even hated Clark Ashton Smith?????

 

[Saba Taru]

I had to vote "It depends." I read the original post and the first thing I thought of was that both settings couldn't be the same. Both could be good, but they had to have unique elements that would make or break the setting for me when I compared the two.

I suppose if the setting with the elements that grabbed my attention was the one with the novels, and I really, really liked the setting, I'd pick up a novel to give it a try. I'll be the first to admit that I read a whole lot of things (not just in one genera, either), but something that reads like the transcript of a gaming session isn't my cup of tea. It's like Morrus said. In my early teens, my tastes were wide open. Now, they're a more defined.

Gaming related fiction can be entertaining, if not an excellent read. For the most part, however, it's not for me any more.

Saba

 

[MojoGM]

Sure. As far as the stuff published by WotC, I've enjoyed the following authors:

Paul Kemp (Forgotten Realms)
Don Bassingthwaite (Eberron)
Tim Waggoner (Eberron)

As to the original question, quality of fiction doesn't really influence by decision on buying a setting.

I really enjoyed Kemp's "Erevis Cale" stuff, and thought Waggoner's first Eberron book was fantastic. I'm just about to start Bassingwaite's series.

I really get annoyed with people who bad mouth all gaming fiction as a group, instead of taking each one on its own merits. And I'm willing to bet that most of these people have read very little, if any, gaming fiction.

 

[Voadam]

My first reaction is that yes, a novel makes a setting a little more attractive. Not significantly there as a purchase factor, but yes a little more so.

I've read a lot of novels that have RPG gaming worlds, some that were novels first (Lord of the Rings, Elric, Wheel of Time, Cthulhu, Conan, Thieve's World), some that were games first (Ravenloft, FR, Spelljammer, generic D&D, WH40K, Oathbound, Dark Sun, Shadowrun, Greyhawk) and the Dragonlance ones which I think were developed together.

 

[Belen]

I'd go with B. Novels always kill a setting for me. They get in the way of the game. Reading FR and Dragonlance novels have kept me from playing or running in those worlds because I cannot get past the story within the novels.

Novels kill a campaign setting.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

And I'm willing to bet that most of these people have read very little, if any, gaming fiction.

I read a lot of the early FR stuff, probably the first 10 or so Dragonlance, a half-dozen Shadowrun, some Greyhawk. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say they all sucked, with the exception of the first couple Dragonlance I couldn't tell you what any of them were about without reading the jacket cover. The gems were few and far between, and you really can't expect much more. With a limited amount of time and money to spend on books, I'd much rather read something where the odds are better.

Call me elitist, but I just think game fiction is too much like paint-by-numbers.