Can novels make or break a setting for you?

[ha-gieden]

I am on both sides of this issue.

I actually don't like anything I've ever read for Forgotten Realms, and avoid that setting partially for that reason. On the other hand, I'm considering running a game in the Wheel of Time setting simply because I enjoyed the novels.

To complicate things further, I have actually written a novel and RPG set in the same world. I didn't mean to do it.

I wrote the novel first, and was fascinated with the concepts and world (otherwise, I wouldn't have been writing it ). I wanted to make sure that I kept everything consistent, so I kept a second file where I jotted down everything in game terms. Basically, if someone worked magic, I kept a record of how they did it, what kind of magic it was, and so on, and wrote mechanics for that action so that for the rest of the novel, anytime magic was touched upon, it followed a similar set of rules. I did the same for the creatures, political factions, religious groups, even the weather. I was fairly meticulous, and by the end of the novel, I had the RPG halfway done.

After completing the novel (and receiving a publishing contract on it), I went back over the RPG and made sure that it could stand alone. I took out any reference to specific characters, I made sure that all the combat and magic were broad enough to encompass many different playing styles, I "updated" the given locals so that they represented what the novel's settings would look like 50 years later, I added rules for putting any current map (fantasy or real life) into the game, ect. I made sure that there was lots of open space for gamers to create their own stories (the novel only touched upon one small piece of the world during one short period of time). We playtested the heck out of it. Then I submitted it to the publisher.

I don't think that you'd have to like the game to like the book, or the book to like the game. (Even though you'd have to buy into the concepts at least somewhat to like either.) Secretly, I hope that when people like one, they will decide to try the other. Realistically, I know that I can't count on that. And that's fine. If they cannot stand alone, they deserve to fall.

I hope that people will try whichever one (novel or RPG) interests them, regardless of whether or not they care about the other. By the results of the poll, I'd say there's a decent chance of that

 

[rowport]

Folks-

First off, my hat is duly doffed to Teflon Billy, a class act indeed, to share his opinion honestly but be willing to be proven wrong. Well done, sir!

By way of full disclosure, I will start by saying that I like quite a bit of shared world writing. I would certainly agree that many shared world books are quite bad (out of respect to the authors, I will pass on pointing them out). However, I am blown away by the number of posters here who believe that (seemingly by definition) if a book is in a shared world series that it must be bad! The question that kept coming to my mind as I read the thread is this: do you posters who do not like and/or will not read shared world fiction otherwise enjoy fantasy writing, and if so, which authors/books?

I ask, because I find many shared world novelists to be among my favorite fantasy authors, and I believe that I read a fair share of what is available in the genre. Just like TB was willing to try something new, if you folks can help me find the books in the genre that are that much better than in the shared worlds, heck, I will read them! But, let me give some examples of what I like and why (in both shared worlds and standalone), because perhaps that may explain the difference in POV.

I do not like Eddings. I find his work to be wordy and obtuse. I like Brooks on occasion, but not universally. I enjoyed his early Shannara books but felt the series quickly became redundant and predicable. In contrast, his urban fantasy series is wonderful stuff, and his magic kingdom for sale work is quirky fun. I enjoy George R. R. Martin tremendously. His fiction of heavy historical detail and politics more than battle scenes would not normally be my cup of tea, but Martin's command of characterization makes it come alive. (As an aside GRRM is one of the *first* shared world authors I read, although I now include him here as a 'non-shared world author'...) I have not yet read most of China Mieville's books, but found Perdido Street Station to be incredible-- not what I could call "fun", but wonderfully inventive and thought-provoking. (While not precisely 'fantasy') Neal Stephenson's writing is amazing; I devour every books he writes. I will also point out Mark Fabi here; he unfortunately never published Red Mars, but his first book Wyrm was freakin' amazing.

Now, on to shared world authors: I do not like many Forgotten Realms books (again, without naming authors) as they tend to rely on knowledge of far too much backstory rather than immediate plot. However, several authors in that series stand out as excellent. Paul Kemp's work is simply great, and does not rely heavily on FR lore but rather stands on the strength of its characters. Salvatore's detailed battle scenes are fantastic, and I really enjoy his books. While I will acknowledge that his characterization can be thin, I do not agree that his writing is "bad" as stated here repeatedly; or, at least, I challenge those posters to point to a consistently better author within the genre. Several of the newer authors in WOTC publications are very good as well; I especially liked Eric Scott de Bie's Ghostwalker, and enjoyed each of the books in the "Fighters" series. I did not like the "Clerics" or "Rogues" series, however, so YMMV. It has been many years since I read any Dragonlance, but found that series all to be quite weak.

My reads of Star Wars books are also decidedly a mixed bag. Certain authors, especially Timothy Zahn and Aaron Allston, as always enjoyable. While I have read fewer of his books, Matthew Stover's Shatterpoint is great! Many others in the line are not, unfortunately. Also, like Forgotten Realms, the SW books tend to rely too much on detailed fan knowledge, which weakens them for me on their own merits; I really do not care too much for SW, but like to read space opera (and not hard sci-fi!).

Returning briefly to GRRM: Martin's Wild Cards shared world from the early 1980s is just great fun, especially the first few books in the series.

Generally, I like to read fantasy for the fantastic. I view it as escapist fiction. I am not a fan of alternate history (although I do admire Turtledove's commitment to the craft). I do not like much hard sci-fi. Classic fantasy that reads like history (a la Eddings) bores me to tears. I fully acknowledge that much in the genre is 'light' writing, but enjoy it for that.

So, does it just boil down to taste, or POV? What say you, enemies of the shared world fiction?

 

[theemrys]

For me, although I sometimes enjoy reading about the world for flavour, I usually find it more of a hindrance than a help... with some exceptions.

I'm a big fan on "static timelines" for settings I use. This was one of the big things I liked about the shortlived Birthright setting. They were able to have novels, but they all covered history, and therefore didn't affect the campaign you were running... or at least invalidate any of it.

I really got ticked off with the Realms when the novels started to "change" my world... I know I didn't have to include it, but all products going forward did...

That's one of the reasons I like Kingdom of Kalamar... frozen timeline.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Teflon Billy,

First, I'm sincerely pleased that the novel worked for you.

Second, I want to offer my thanks to you, both for reading the book with an open mind (and for sharing your thoughts about it afterward) and for acting with such class throughout the discussion on this thread.

Paul

No worries

I picked up the next two earlier today at the mall.