Gaming fiction revisited

[talysman]

This is a good time for this topic to come up, for me. Historically, I've been quite the foe of fiction in RPG books, most especially if it was not an actual story but an "excerpt" from a non-existent story.

By and large, my view remains unchanged ... but with a recent twist. Now, I'm thinking that complete stories (beginning, middle, end) are good things no matter when or how they might be found: in a paperback publication as such, in a game book, written on a dungeon cell wall, or found under a rock. Story? Whole story? Good story? Cool.

I think this is why I object to game fiction, too. a lot of it is just a written-out game scenario that starts nowhere and goes nowhere. I'm so used to it being bad that I automatically skip it these days; I am further encouraged to do so because much post-White Wolf game fiction seems to be printed white-on-offwhite or dark-grey-on-black or black-on-hideous-moire-pattern in the theory that anything hip must be designed to be unreadable.

... but good fiction, included in a game book, could be desirable. I started thinking about this after reading Robin Laws' recent book about game mastering (yeah, I bought it.) he suggests there that in order to improve the players' understanding of their game world, they should have access to tons of fiction written for that setting.

it's a good point. it's one reason why dragonlance is a popular game setting -- there's so many dragonlance novels. (please don't argue with me about the quality of dragonlance: I hate it myself. but I run into many people who love it.) it's also why CoC and Stormbringer do well, and why there has been more than one edition of Star Wars and LotR rpgs. (it doesn't explain why there has never been a "warlord of barsoom" rpg, though.)

[Christoffer Lernö]

First we need to, like Alan says, separate separately published novels and stories from the fiction in rule books and supplements. They are two different beasts altogether.

TSL argues that writing a story which isn't possible within the setting is ok because you should focus on the story first is a little beside the point I was making. Some people might be aware of the gripes I have with fantasy illustrations too. It's the same thing: really cool cover, but in reality you can't do what's on the cover in actual play. I see this as a reality check for the authors of the game mechanic rather than a fault of the cover/story. I don't suggest fitting the story to the mechanic. What I suggest is that you should have a mechanic that covers what you want your stories to be.

If you have a piece of game fiction that actually is impossible to run with the given mechanics, then you have a problem. Ideally game fiction should tell a player how the game is to be run, what stories you should tell. If these stories isn't possible with the system then something is seriously wrong. Obviously the one constructing the mechanic hasn't been paying attention to the actual design specs of the game.

It's strange that Demonspahn should mention Shadowrun since I think it's a good example of game fiction gone wrong. a) A pointless story b) contains elements which rarely occurs in actual play. Of course my main gripe is with the whole concept of the standard Shadowrun adventures. Basically they say the characters should do clandestine work and such, but then they don't provice any material whatsoever on how to set up said standard adventures. Interestingly most of their game fiction (some which is really excellent!) also virtually ignores said standard-setup. Basically you're left on your own to define the world. It might be easier if you run bought adventures (which I personally never do, only sourcebooks), but then again the only bought adventure in said system was an EXTREME trip of railroading the characters where they were supposed to go, so I suspect this is a very real flaw. Too bad my players just love to play Shadowrun.  But I'm getting side-tracked.

The point is that it's not easy to write good game fiction, unfortunately it seems like every other person wants to take a shot at it. Sometimes game fiction is a good thing, but then it usually is made with some ulterior purpose and not because "every game has it". It's like the skill lists that people routinely put in with skills that are totally irrelevant. Q:"Why is there a skill list?" A:"All the games I've played had kind of skill list".

To sum it up: too much game fiction is there because the designers assume it has to be written. Because of that it becomes cliched and meaningless. The example in lizard's post probably rings very familiar to most people. What does that imply? It implies that said cliche had nothing to do with the actual setting or game it came from. Which in turn means it wasn't used to illustrate setting nor game mechanic. In other words, it had no intrensic meaning. It's like  saying "oh god"... that doesn't mean you are christian nor that you try to invoke the protection of that deity. It's just an expression emptied of its original meaning.

It boils down to these two facts:
1. Meaningless game fiction sucks.
2. Most game fiction does not have any intention or meaning.

[Epidiah]

No argument it's possible to craft a compelling paragraph, but short-short stories with beginnings, middles, and ends typically run something like two to four hundred words, not the length of your typical single paragraph. . . .
They aren't easy, however.  Most short bits tossed in as game fiction are vignettes, not complete stories. . . .

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but I should point out that stories with beginnings, middles, and ends are exactly the kind of fiction that is most likely to annoy me in a game. That packs too much in, and detracts from the whole reason why I am reading the game. I much prefer snipets and vignettes. When done right they are swift, they accomplish their goal, and get out of the way.

I think that I should also point out that by the same token, if I were reading a novel or short story I would not want to stumble upon a rulebook in the middle of it. A game based on the adventures of Sherlock Holmes should not be tucked into A Study in Scarlet any more than a complete story about swashbuckling space pirate should be tucked into a sci-fi game.

[Jeremy Cole]

For me the whole issue comes back to the very reason I am disappointed with most RP products.

As it seems to me, designers write fiction, produce art, and do all the the things to fire the reader's interest in the 'so cool' setting, and then develop mechanics to go along with it.  The mechanics, the 'physics' of this world, suffer IM(not so)HO.

I dunno, I guess I've been thinking that it should all work the other way around.  Build a mechanic, to define the 'physics' of the world, and then figure out how a world with these 'physics' would operate.  If the game encourages psychopathic wanderers, then consider a world where almost everyone is a psychopathic wanderer (Fist of the Northern Star anyone?).

Anyhow, in a desperate attempt to attach this to the thread, I think that's where game fiction goes wrong (or any aid to setting for that matter goes wrong).  For my mind, the best way to illustrate play is to illustrate play.  What's wrong with transcripts of play being both setting and examples of rules in use?

Jeremy

[Demonspahn]

Pale Fire wrote:
It's strange that Demonspahn should mention Shadowrun since I think it's a good example of game fiction gone wrong. a) A pointless story b) contains elements which rarely occurs in actual play.

Try to think about it from a prospective player's POV rather than a designer.  9 out of 10 people read that story and want to play the game because it draws you into the world.  It has literally been years since I have read that story but I can still remember the adept and the street sam squaring off, the adept hurling taunts like "vat boy" at the same.  It was just so damn cool.  

It did a great job of showcasing the world, the lingo some of the concepts and most importantly the "feel" of what a Shadowrun adventure should be about.  I really think that should be the true purpose of the fiction---showcase the game concepts while making you want to play the game.  

As to lizard's article---yeah, it sounds all cliched, but I don't hear too many complaints from fans of The Matrix or Star Wars.  

Pete


Sidenote #1:  

I agree that fiction should stay within the confines of the game/system, but I don't remember anything in that story that couldn't play out in an actual session.  


Sidenote #2:

Pale Fire wrote:
Basically you're left on your own to define the world.

This is a bad thing?  I generally tend to ignore metaplots and define the world myself.  At best I will bastardize a storyline and mold the good parts to my existing campaign.  Oh, and you're right---do not buy Shadowrun adventures (the older ones anyway).  I have never ever seen a good one.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Historically, I've been quite the foe of fiction in RPG books, most especially if it was not an actual story but an "excerpt" from a non-existent story.

Interesting. I found the vignettes in Nobilis and Maelstrom to be among the best features of those games. It's especially important in Maelstrom, which is largely about Exploration of Setting and Color.

I should point out that stories with beginnings, middles, and ends are exactly the kind of fiction that is most likely to annoy me in a game. That packs too much in, and detracts from the whole reason why I am reading the game.

I tend to agree. I can think of far more non-horrible game fiction vignettes than I can non-horrible complete short stories in rulebooks.