Gaming Fiction

[Aulayan]

I still view Gaming fiction negatively for the most part. Granted, all I've read is Realms fiction when it comes to Gaming.

I almost dropped reading it completely, but decided to try out Halls of Stormweather, which hooked me back in it. But only partially. I still avoided the Return of the Archwizards, partially due to it being an RSE (and how am I sick of those) and it being written by Troy Denning whose work I haven't liked yet. The next RSE I also plan on avoiding, due in part because I haven't cared for Byers' writing. Though with the Shattered Mask, I viewed it more as 'Great ideas, just flawed execution.' At least the great ideas were there.

In gaming fiction, I look for a story that has interesting characters that change and react to what happens to them. I look for a story that writes the world well. And I look for an author who can make the fiction exciting. Points 1 and 3 are what I look for in all books, Point 2 only for Shared World fiction.

I'm pretty much only on the lookout for Realms fiction written by Paul, Voronica, and Dave Gross now. Though I may try the various Priest series novels not written by them just to once again try to expand my author list.

It is interesting though. Gaming fiction sucking is a large stereotype amongst gamers/fantasy readers. Fantasy fiction being juvenile is more of a stereotype amongst more literary and even non-literary readers. Even readers who are stereotyped against must also stereotype it seems.

-Alan

 

[PaulKemp]

For me it is good characters, character interaction, and dialog, which together creates the atmosphere for the setting.

Agreed, Hand. That's what does it for me too, which means we can find great books amongst both gaming and non-gaming fiction. Incidentally, if it wasn't clear, I meant to write that 'my definition of great does NOT include the requirement that the story be epic." Not. Sheesh. Where's my editor when I need him?

Anyway, I corrected that little oversight in my post.

Paul

 

[Greppa of Tartwater]

Personally, I enjoy gaming fiction a lot. I find that it fleshes out a lot of rhetorical questions that I have about the gaming worlds that the source books do not address.

Conversely, it's the same reason my friends can't stand them. They read the source books and want to run the world "their way." They've worked out the intersitital things that makes the big things in the source books work together smoothly. To see that invalidated in a novel tends to strongly annoy them so they rail against them and don't read them...especially if it takes the meta plot in a direction that derails their current games.

That aside, gaming novels (at least for me) advance the concepts in the sourcebooks. Whether or not they are considered canon or not in game depends on the GM. I've had to develop a strong sense of separation because I've yet to meet a GM who games around the metaplot advanced by the publisher through novels. Not that it wouldn't be fun to try.

 

[Greppa of Tartwater]

Edit Dupe

 

[Umbran]

A shared world author does have that responsibility and I take it seriously.

You might, Mr. Kemp, but you in particular aren't the issue under discussion. The genre as a whole has the issue of being consistent with canon. In FR, for example, there's a whole lot fo canon at this point. It isn't really reasonable to expect an author to match up flawlessly with all of it.

But matching the canon data isn't enough. As others have mentioned, there's the problem of matching up with what people to at home, in their own games. Then there's the issue of matching style. Supposedly they're set in the same world, but the old FR "Mooshae Trilogy" and the "Cleric Quintet" might as well not be for the style differences. A person who liked one who picks up the other may well feel burned.

All I'm trying to say is that notwithstanding that difficulty, good stories can still be told. So that difficulty alone should not be enough to dismiss gaming fiction as a genre. I think that makes sense.

It makes sense, yes. But people's choice in reading material is based upon experience, not sense. It doesn't matter if good stories could be told if the reader runs into a couple of the bad ones first.

There are more books out there than one can read in a lifetime. If a reader finds that a genre tends to mediocrity due to the weight of these constraints, why should the reader continue to try to beat the odds?

There's good stuff out there -- even in gaming fiction -- if you're willing to look around a bit.

I don't argue that there is good gaming fiction, but finding the gems takes a bit more than "looking around a bit". It takes money, time, and effort.

Here's the thing, with so much fiction out there, authors and publishers are in competition for the reader's money, time, and attention. If you want gaming fiction to compare well with the likes of Martin and Williams and deLint, then the bulk of the genre has to compare well. Otherwise, you have to repeatedly have to ask the reader to take a risk, which isn't a good place for you to be...

That brings another thought to mind - in the 80s, it was pretty clear that gaming fiction was targetted at slightly younger readers - the gamers of the time. The reading tastes of a high-school or early college reader are not the same as those of a 30 year old. Folks who read the original Dragonlance and FR novels are likely to think that trend continues.

 

[PaulKemp]

Then there's the issue of matching style. Supposedly they're set in the same world, but the old FR "Mooshae Trilogy" and the "Cleric Quintet" might as well not be for the style differences. A person who liked one who picks up the other may well feel burned.

Of course styles are going to differ -- each author speaks with a different voice. That's not a problem, in my view; that's a strength. I don't think many readers who pick up Salvatore today and Kemp tomorrow expect to get the same style, nor should they. What they should expect, and should get, is a consistent presentation of the factual underpinnings of the world.

It makes sense, yes. But people's choice in reading material is based upon experience, not sense. It doesn't matter if good stories could be told if the reader runs into a couple of the bad ones first.

I couldn't agree more. My point is simply that a reader's experience in reading, and perhaps not liking one FR author (or other gaming fiction author) does not provide a logical reason for dismissing all authors who write in the same world (or the same sub-genre). If I read Feist, and don't like it, I do not then conclude that I will not like all non-gaming fiction. I simply move to another author of non-gaming fantasy fiction (if that categorization is important to me).

There are more books out there than one can read in a lifetime. If a reader finds that a genre tends to mediocrity due to the weight of these constraints, why should the reader continue to try to beat the odds?

Because the odds, in my view, are fictitious. In my opinion, *today* a reader is no more likely to encounter bad gaming fiction than he/she is bad non-gaming fiction. The myth of generally bad gaming-fiction has lingered, even while the reality has outrun it. Obviously, I'm biased here, but I think it's true nevertheless.

Here's the thing: If a reader has read widely in the "gaming fiction genre" and decided, for whatever reason, that it's not for him or her and doesn't hold up with non-gaming fiction, that makes sense. But if the reader's view of gaming fiction is based on some old TSR novels he or she read back in the late eighties/early nineties, I'd suggest that such a reader has an insufficient sample from which to generalize to the sub-genre today.


Paul

 

[Hand of Evil]

Here's the thing: If a reader has read widely in the "gaming fiction genre" and decided, for whatever reason, that it's not for him or her and doesn't hold up with non-gaming fiction, that makes sense. But if the reader's view of gaming fiction is based on some old TSR novels he or she read back in the late eighties/early nineties, I'd suggest that such a reader has an insufficient sample from which to generalize to the sub-genre today.


Paul

I agree. Over the years (I am 43) I have seen fads in writing, where you could pick up five books and three of them would be clones. I think a number of game setting novels authors have matured in style, some have not.

 

[Umbran]

Of course styles are going to differ -- each author speaks with a different voice. That's not a problem, in my view; that's a strength.

In your view, sure. But if all the readers were like you, the problem wouldn't exist, now would it?

Some readers may want consistent style and tone in all the fiction in one world. Outside of gaming fiction, there aren't that many instances of "shared worlds", so it may seem jarring to some readers.

I couldn't agree more. My point is simply that a reader's experience in reading, and perhaps not liking one FR author (or other gaming fiction author) does not provide a logical reason for dismissing all authors who write in the same world (or the same sub-genre).

Dude, if you want logic look to vulcans, not human beings.

Really and honestly, people's reading choices are not usually based upon logic. They are based upon taste and perception. Some few of us base our perceptions in logic, but that's not the human norm. The planet has far worse problems caused by illogic than people's views of gaming fiction.

So, in the end, what you're fighting against is nothing less than human nature. Good luck!

 

[Harp]

Because the odds, in my view, are fictitious. In my opinion, *today* a reader is no more likely to encounter bad gaming fiction than he/she is bad non-gaming fiction. The myth of generally bad gaming-fiction has lingered, even while the reality has outrun it. Obviously, I'm biased here, but I think it's true nevertheless.

For me, it comes back to the issue of whether or not truly great gaming fiction exists, and that remains to be seen. (I'll say now that I haven't read any of your stuff.) Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of free time that I can set aside for reading, so when I do, I insist that whatever I'm reading be so much more than "not bad". Rightly or wrongly, I simply haven't heard of any gaming fiction authors that have been compared favorably with my favorites, such as George R.R. Martin, Guy Gavriel Kay, and Glen Cook. Now, perhaps that's a result of the bias you describe, but on the other hand, those great authors (as I see them) make up a fairly exclusive club.

 

[PaulKemp]

Dude, if you want logic look to vulcans, not human beings.