Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5626373" data-attributes="member: 54877">The difference?&nbsp; The difference is one of credible adaption to different media versus too slavish adaptation.&nbsp; That is, if I am reading a novel with some before or after relation to a version of D&amp;D, I'll take Raymond Feist, Steven Brust, or Leiber or Vance themselves.&nbsp; Their worst stuff is noticably better than the best slavish adaptations.&nbsp; And it is no accident that some of the better &quot;system&quot; novelist of D&amp;D have felt the most free to diverge from the mechanics (e.g. Elaine Cunningham).&nbsp; There is also an example of the problem in reverse, where Ed Greenwood actually let his novels sink another notch in order to preserve a game conceit!&nbsp; (I forget the titles.&nbsp; The books were very forgettable.&nbsp; It was the ones where the characters were burning magic items all the time to power their spells.)&nbsp;That is, given the choice between playing out something like a novel and then reading a faithful report of it, or playing out something like an RPG session and then reading an adapation to the a novel of it--I'd pick the latter every time--on both counts.&nbsp; I think that not only will the novel be better to read, but the game will be more fun to play.&nbsp; YMMV on the game side, and I can see why it would.&nbsp; From a critical perspective, though, I think practical history thus far has born out my conclusions on the novel. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5626373, member: 54877"] The difference? The difference is one of credible adaption to different media versus too slavish adaptation. That is, if I am reading a novel with some before or after relation to a version of D&D, I'll take Raymond Feist, Steven Brust, or Leiber or Vance themselves. Their worst stuff is noticably better than the best slavish adaptations. And it is no accident that some of the better "system" novelist of D&D have felt the most free to diverge from the mechanics (e.g. Elaine Cunningham). There is also an example of the problem in reverse, where Ed Greenwood actually let his novels sink another notch in order to preserve a game conceit! (I forget the titles. The books were very forgettable. It was the ones where the characters were burning magic items all the time to power their spells.) That is, given the choice between playing out something like a novel and then reading a faithful report of it, or playing out something like an RPG session and then reading an adapation to the a novel of it--I'd pick the latter every time--on both counts. I think that not only will the novel be better to read, but the game will be more fun to play. YMMV on the game side, and I can see why it would. From a critical perspective, though, I think practical history thus far has born out my conclusions on the novel. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification