Gaming Fiction

[PaulKemp]

First, a disclaimer: I'm an old-time, grognard-gamer and a writer of gaming fiction (in WotC's Forgotten Realms line).

Now, a genuine question: It seems to me -- and this seems especially true among fellow old-timers -- that gaming fiction gets slagged hard. Generalizations are offered without qualification: "gaming fiction blows chunks!"

On the other hand, non-gaming fantasy fiction is cut much more slack, even when much of it is (at least IMO) pretty bad. No real generalization there; or, to the extent a generalization is offered, it is done so without the same level of vitriolic assuredness.

Why is that? (and I know that question creates in your mind innumerable pithy responses; those are fine, but the thoughtful responses are what I'm looking for).

I mean, it seems to me that there is bad gaming fiction and bad non-gaming fiction in about equal proportions, yet gaming fiction is generally regarded as the mange-ridden, hare-lipped stepchild of fantasy fiction.

Now, I must acknowledge that the percentage of bad gaming fiction novels released by TSR back in the day was pretty high. But it is equally clear to me that such is no longer the case today, yet the stigma remains. Is this because many potential readers regard gaming fiction as too juvenile? Too likely to be drek?

Thoughts? (I'm genuinely just curious; not trying to push my own books here, slam anyone, or anything else).

Paul

 

[CCamfield]

Some rambling thoughts...

Personally, I regard it as too likely to be bad. I guess I am basing my judgement off what little gaming fiction I have read - some of Salvatore's earlier stuff that I read in the early 90s.

Am I wrong in thinking that gaming fiction tends to be written to a pretty tight deadline? That (if so) can't help but constrain quality.

Also, to be honest, I don't regard the world-building in (say) the Forgotten Realms as being particularly good. That (the existing world, that is) is something an author of gaming fiction is kind of stuck with...

If I'm in a bookstore, off the bat I'm going to ignore the gaming fiction. But when looking at the non-gaming fiction I will also ignore the stuff by authors I dislike and (on examination) stuff that looks bad.

If I were to even consider buying some gaming fiction, I wouldn't really have a clue which authors are good and which are not. This is part of the problem with working in a subfield where the brand is marketed more prominently than most authors. (A problem RPGs suffer from in general, I think.) So that also keeps me away.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Everyone has their on vision of a game world, it is how they look, see, interact with it. When books are wrote to them it comes across as a flawed translation.

When writers build their on worlds they provide details and you take it in new.

 

[takyris]

Ditto Vision to an extent. Readers who already know something about the setting of a story get very indignant when a story differs from their opinion of how such a story "ought to be".

For example (and Paul, I haven't read your stuff, so none of this applies to you), you get gamers who want to see spells called by name, with wizards using spell components and such and spells following the rules in the book pretty closely. You also get people who want to see magic more "fantasy-like" in their fantasy novels, and get really irate when a fantasy novel reads like a gaming session, complete with how many fireballs the wizard had to cast to take down the guardsmen. Different gaming groups use different levels of flavor and rules interpretation, and the poor gaming author is stuck trying to make each of them happy.

There's also the question of clerics. Clerics and clerical spells mess up most common fantasy-novel plots. Murder victims have a habit of getting raised or at least spoken with, and when the gaming novelist has characters do something that would make sense in a normal fantasy novel, he's branded as stupid for ignoring the possibility of simply using spell "X". When he does, he's branded as stupid by the other side for having "a plot no better than the average gaming session", because the mystery was spoiled. Same goes for healing. Leave out healing, and the gamers mock you for having a party with no cleric. Put in healing, and you've got to have a) a cleric in the party, which leads to more religious discussion and argument, b) a description of how the healing works, how you can dash in and heal your friend in mid-battle, and so forth. Good D&D tactics end up sounding less heroic when applied to fiction, rather than a roleplaying session. This is one reason that I read very few story hours.

Some writers manage to make most people happy by refusing to cater to one side or the other. I'm not a huge fan of Salvatore's new stuff, but I loved his old stuff -- mostly because he kept the flavor of a game I'd like but didn't bother with the boring stuff. He made cool fight scenes. I liked reading about his fights. They were fun. They were fights I'd have loved to try and do in a D&D game.

Elaine Cunningham's "Danilo & Arilyn" books do a lot of the same things -- they use as little of the rules as possible in order to tell as good a story as possible. People could complain that Danilo couldn't cast that many teleports per day and so on, but the fact is, it's a fun story.

Note: These are my personal biases. I like fun fight scenes and good dialogue, and I could care less how well it maps do D&D rules. Mileage may vary.

So, those are some reasons why I think you have a point. Gaming Fiction gets a harsher treatment from gamers than ordinary fiction -- although it's only slightly harsher than Media Fiction, which is treated harshly as well, for many of the same reasons (people have watched the show from which the novel came, and have their own ideas about how things should look, sound, feel, and go). Media Fiction gets off a bit easier, though, because at least there, you've got a show to work from. Gaming Fiction accesses the imagination of a hundred thousand different roleplaying sessions, each of which had a different flavor.

Finally, I'd suggest that gaming fiction really gets a bad rap from gamers because it's the area where gamers get to be snobs. Bring up some of the "normal" fiction that people are reading in some writing/reading message boards, and you'll be laughed off as an adolescent fanboy. Jordan and Goodkind are not treated with kid gloves everywhere, and you'll find people sneering at you for liking them and suggesting you go read Neil Gaiman or China Mieville to find out what "actual fantasy is like". Every genre, and subgenre, has its elitists.

Second Note: My personal perspective is that of a "normal" fantasy/sci-fi writer who also happens to game. I've got five or six short story sales under my belt, and novels with agents, and a ton of respect for people with the commitment and dedication to get their novel published, whatever genre or subgenre it might be in. I read for fun, for enjoyment, and for the occasional thoughtful realization. I get ticked off when I'm lectured by the author, and I hate sloppy dialogue and lame fight scenes.

 

[PaulKemp]

Re: Re: Gaming Fiction

Some rambling thoughts...

Personally, I regard it as too likely to be bad. I guess I am basing my judgement off what little gaming fiction I have read - some of Salvatore's earlier stuff that I read in the early 90s.

I think this is true of a lot of potential readers, and it's too bad. I can't blame you -- in your mind, you got burned. But when that happens in non-game fantasy fiction, you'll still try another fantasy author, won't you? With a little research, you might be able to find gaming fiction authors whose style you'd like.

Am I wrong in thinking that gaming fiction tends to be written to a pretty tight deadline? That (if so) can't help but constrain quality.

In my case, that is wrong. I do a novel a year, with a few short stories thrown in. That's ample time. And while it is work-for-hire, I take immense pride in putting out what I believe to be quality writing.

Also, to be honest, I don't regard the world-building in (say) the Forgotten Realms as being particularly good. That (the existing world, that is) is something an author of gaming fiction is kind of stuck with....

Well, I can't argue with that. I can ask this though -- is it really the world that shines in fantasy that you enjoy, or the characters/plot/prose? Sometimes it's the former, but often it's the latter. At the end of the day, the world of Martin's SoIaF isn't particularly interesting to me; it's his characters and storytelling that bring me back. Related to that: the Realms is a very broad, diverse place. My stories are not high magic, swashbuckling tales, which is what people often think of when they think FR. Instead, my stories tend to be dark, moody, character driven pieces. I think they fit nicely into the Realms, but the Realms do not drive my writing.

I can understand that it might be hard -- and maybe not worthwhile to you -- to find out which gaming-fiction authors are given more positive reviews than others, but I would suggest that it might be worth the effort sometime.

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful response.

Paul

 

[PaulKemp]

Everyone has their on vision of a game world, it is how they look, see, interact with it. When books are wrote to them it comes across as a flawed translation.

When writers build their on worlds they provide details and you take it in new.

This, I think, is just wrong. There is no objective, Platonic, *thing-in-itself* that is the Forgotten Realms (or any other world, for that matter). There is only the result of the creative process, a process, in the case of FR, that involves many voices. What you see and read *is* FR, not a translation of it.

The logic of your position would suggest that we ought not to run campaigns in prepackaged settings -- after all, since we are not the world's creator, our campaign is but a poor translation of what FR/Midnight/whatever.

Paul

 

[Hand of Evil]

This, I think, is just wrong. There is no objective, Platonic, *thing-in-itself* that is the Forgotten Realms (or any other world, for that matter). There is only the result of the creative process, a process, in the case of FR, that involves many voices. What you see and read *is* FR, not a translation of it.

The logic of your position would suggest that we ought not to run campaigns in prepackaged settings -- after all, since we are not the world's creator, our campaign is but a poor translation of what FR/Midnight/whatever.

Paul

Maybe.

I am not saying that a good story can not be wrote in a setting but when people play in the game world they make it their own, they personalize it, appling their ideas, thoughts and stories. When a writer uses a setting they use locations, characters and events that may go against what the reader saw and used.

I think you see this when settings are produced from movies and TV shows, wonderful stuff but it never is the same thing for some people.

 

[PaulKemp]

Finally, I'd suggest that gaming fiction really gets a bad rap from gamers because it's the area where gamers get to be snobs. Bring up some of the "normal" fiction that people are reading in some writing/reading message boards, and you'll be laughed off as an adolescent fanboy. Jordan and Goodkind are not treated with kid gloves everywhere, and you'll find people sneering at you for liking them and suggesting you go read Neil Gaiman or China Mieville to find out what "actual fantasy is like". Every genre, and subgenre, has its elitists.

Takyris, well said.

To your last point: it was not the elitists, as such, that bothered me. You're correct -- all areas have them. What concerned me was that the elitism seemed to have trickled down to most everyone such that the statement "gaming fiction sucks" had become almost a mantra (at least among those who post on the internet in various forums). I'm overstating that a bit, but you take the point. I found it disheartening to see that. My view is and continues to be that I'll evaluate each author on his or her own merits -- not on the basis of an overbroad (and possibly unfounded) generalization.

Paul

 

[takyris]

Paul, a couple additional notes, based on your replies.

You said:"I can ask this though -- is it really the world that shines in fantasy that you enjoy, or the characters/plot/prose? Sometimes it's the former, but often it's the latter."

That's the thing, though. It's something different for everybody. Some people read fantasy because they really like the setting, and for them, it's all about epic theme characters and archetypes moving through a beautiful, well-realized world. Frankly, that kind of story would bore the snot out of me -- I'm all about good dialogue and clever plots. But that's just me, and as a writer and a reader, it's taken me awhile to understand and accept that it's just me.

What you said makes me more likely to read you, because it sounds like you treasure the kinds of things I treasure -- but it doesn't make someone who reads for setting/archetypal themes any less of a reader.


You also said: "This, I think, is just wrong. There is no objective, Platonic, *thing-in-itself* that is the Forgotten Realms (or any other world, for that matter). There is only the result of the creative process, a process, in the case of FR, that involves many voices. What you see and read *is* FR, not a translation of it."

That's a writer perspective, and as a writer, I agree with you completely. As a reader, I disagree somewhat, since I get annoyed with authors who retcon their universes to make room for more expansions or sequels. As a gamer, I disagree vehemently, because I paid good money for a campaign setting that should be everything I need to run my own game, and if someone comes along and violates it, that's a pain. Many if not most gamers today also play computer games, and computer games are pretty clear about what it and is NOT the product. The novel tie-in for a computer-game is NOT the computer game. If it deviates significantly, it's wrong, plain and simple -- even if the novel tells a better story.

I'm not saying that I personally agree with that -- like I said, I'm a writer, and I see where you're coming from -- but it's definitely possible for the gaming reader to have a different opinion, and that's something that must be respected.

I mean, look at how much more flack Lucas is catching these days. In the old days, everyone was waiting to see what he would do next. Now, he does a movie and people shout, "Wait, Coruscant doesn't have that! That alien can't breathe oxygen! Those guys are described as weak and docile -- does he look weak and docile to you?" There's a Star Wars campaign setting out there now, and people want to see it done right -- their kind of right.

I'm not saying that they're right, but there are a lot of them, and they, ultimately, are the ones who decide whether or not to shell out the dollars. Being right is only good if they decide to buy.

EDIT: No matter how stupid they often seem.

ALSO EDIT: And yeah, I think that each author deserves his or her own chance. I'm buying a lot of new fiction these days so that I'm not just reading bestsellers. Sometimes I'm surprised in a good way. Other times, not so much. But I'm still checking things out.

 

[PaulKemp]

double post