"Greyhawk Classics" novels

[Shazman]

Yeah, I keep forgetting to do that. IIRC, the libraries around here didn't seem to have that one. I may have to break down and buy all three.

 

[grodog]

I haven't read any of Kidd's novels yet, or most of the rest of the GH revival novels, but did enjoy Tomb of Horrors. Unlike others above, I enjoyed Strohm's writing and knowledge/use of Greyhawk, although I too, wish there had been more focus on activities within the ToH itself.

 

[karlindel]

I agree with others that the Paul Kidd trilogy was a very fun read, very good for game fiction. The characters were very well done and made them a pleasure to read.

Most of the other books in the series I recall being average or slightly better than average game fiction. I can't recall any of the others that stood out, but it has been a few years since I read them. I personally liked them because of the referenes to the original adventures, and that is their main selling point.

 

[Erik Mona]

Be warned that the Kidd novels are not for everyone. I really strongly disliked them, for example, but that probably had a lot to do with my unhealthy reverence for the Greyhawk setting and general dislike of tongue-in-cheek "jokey" fantasy. Sure, they read easy, but one character is a pixie and another a talking hellhound pelt. If that sort of knee-slappin' and yuk-yukkin' is your brand of fantasy, by all means give them a try.

They were not for me.

--Erik

 

[Mouseferatu]

If that sort of knee-slappin' and yuk-yukkin' is your brand of fantasy, by all means give them a try.

See, I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. Yes, it's very over-the-top, and it's certainly not a deathly serious look--but despite the potentially (and sometimes actually) silly set-up, there's some solid substance and story-telling as well.

Sure, it's "fun fantasy," not "deep fantasy," but while I'd say it had lots of "jokey" elements, I wouldn't call it "jokey fantasy."

Which is not to say that Erik is wrong for disliking them*, just that I'm not entirely onboard with his characterization.

* You are, Erik; I'm just not saying it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Sure, they read easy, but one character is a pixie and another a talking hellhound pelt.

In other words, it was a remarkably foresighted anticipation of Living Greyhawk. *ahem*

 

[Alzrius]

See, I wouldn't characterize it that way at all. Yes, it's very over-the-top, and it's certainly not a deathly serious look--but despite the potentially (and sometimes actually) silly set-up, there's some solid substance and story-telling as well.

Sure, it's "fun fantasy," not "deep fantasy," but while I'd say it had lots of "jokey" elements, I wouldn't call it "jokey fantasy."

Which is not to say that Erik is wrong for disliking them*, just that I'm not entirely onboard with his characterization.

* You are, Erik; I'm just not saying it.

I'm with the mouse on this one. Paul Kidd's characters are very post-modern compared to the cast you'll find in most D&D books, but they're not comical (though to be sure, comedic elements do take place).

 

[Erik Mona]

If by "not comical" you mean "not funny," then I am forced to agree!

Haw, haw, haw.

I kidd, I kidd.

--Erik

 

[MoxieFu]

I am amazed that Eric M is the only poster so far who didn't like the Paul Kidd books. I remember at the time feeling like I was the only one who DID like them. I'm glad to know that there are others!

I do see Eric's point though, even thought I loved them, if seeing the stories made in a less than serious manner would offend you, then these would not be to your liking at all.

I think the stories have a lot of imagination. It would certainly never occur to me to use a wax job as a gate key for getting to another plane!

 

[Mouseferatu]

I kidd, I kidd.

You're casting a paul over the entire conversation...