Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Our hobby has literature at its core. No matter how you trace its origins, the crucial step that transformed {Monopoly|Chutes-&-Ladders|Risk} into the RPG was a love for literature. Specifically, as it so happened, the Tolkien+Howard themed section of Gygax's Chainmail game was the catalyst.

Because of this, one thing that sets RPGs such as (A)D&D apart from "traditional games" is that the RPG is itself a literary outgrowth. Whereas in traditional games the rulebook is an accessory and a necessary evil, in an RPG the rulebook IS the game and is a cherished and enjoyable read. Sourcebooks and modules are creative output that employ a mastery of language and of original thought to evoke mood and to challenge the readers' intellect and stir their emotions. Authors are masters of their genre and employ allusion and homage while avoiding cliché and outright plagiarism. Artists are employed to round out the presentation with aesthetically pleasing layout, and beautiful and interesting illuminations.

If only that were so.

When you go to a bookstore looking for something to read, you have a choice between some light fluff that's diverting but may actually debase your intellect and impoverish your soul on the one hand, and great literature on the other hand. Is it just me or does that choice not exist in RPGs? Why are there shelves and shelves of meaningless garbage, and not one immortal classic among them? Granted that it's a young genre.

One author, that I know of, approached the status of literature in his gaming material, and that's Gary Gygax. He wrote rulebooks worth reading, and he wrote games worth playing. In the pantheon of great authors in the history of mankind, they wouldn't stand out. But among all RPG material ever written? Gygax's stature is head and shoulders above anyone I've ever heard of.

I definitely believe that the best RPG is one where the DM designs the rules and the adventures specifically for the group. So when a game is published as an alternative to that standard, it had better be pretty frickin' amazing, as I see it. So why is it okay to publish reams and reams of schlock that don't even try to be literary anymore?

Not directed at any RPG author who might be reading this. Just a late-nite rant, mainly musing on why RPG material isn't held to a higher standard. Also, what RPG authors and/or specific materials do you think can be held up as literary?

Rob Kuntz - Brilliant Apprentice of the Master, ever in His shadow? (Ran of Ah Fooh to the EGG, heh)

Tracy Hickman (Pharaoh, Rahasia, Ravenloft) - Good story, flawed game design?

Paul Jaquays, Tom Moldvay - Could-have-been-greats?

This topic is not necessarily limited to TSR. Regards.

Falconer wrote:Why are there shelves and shelves of meaningless garbage, and not one immortal classic among them?

Because anyone who can produce something better than garbage is likely writing non-RPG books for way more money.

So why is it okay to publish reams and reams of schlock that don't even try to be literary anymore?

IMO the industry has gone back to the philosophy you mention that the rulebook is a necessary evil, not an end in itself. While they still produce reams of books the intention is for DM and players to reference them only as necessary for understanding the rules of the game, not for enjoyment. Given the record of failure for literary game books over the last thirty years, I would have to say that shift is probably a smart move.

Also, what RPG authors and/or specific materials do you think can be held up as literary?

I would suggest that Graeme Davis, Jim Bambra and Phil Gallagher's work for the original Warhammer approached literary quality. At the very least, reading through The Enemy Within campaign was more enjoyable than trying to GM it.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:I would suggest that Graeme Davis, Jim Bambra and Phil Gallagher's work for the original Warhammer approached literary quality. At the very least, reading through The Enemy Within campaign was more enjoyable than trying to GM it.

Did you deliberately leave out Carl Sargent?

The balance, Falconer, is I think between writing literature (or trying to) and creating a game that people want to play. It's a tough balance because as I discovered when I tried to play Exalted from WW, if you go for the literary jugular first out then what happens is your rules get buried in minutae and "fluff" that the hardcore gamer might not want to read. What Exalted desparately cries out for is a middle section of the main rulebook with charts, formulas, and so on. Or an index of same. But it isn't there! :-/ The game gets caught up in being so self-aggrandizing for telling a good story that it forgets to be a good game as well!

Also, many of the folks who write RPG stuff are rarely better than hacks (and I count myself in the "hacks" column). Role playing games tend to be very...erm...pulpy. That's not to say that there aren't good bits though, just that you have to mine for them. For example, FASA's original titular sourcebook for The Periphery region of space in the Battletech universe is an awesome supplement, filled to the rim with gaming goodness. Even if I never play Battletech or Mechwarrior again, I'll always keep that book because I want to read about the histories of the little bandit kingdoms on the fringes of known space, and all the little stories and side-bars that describe it. The Periphery covers such a massive area that a game master would be hard pressed to ever run out of things for players to go and do, and thats just one region of space, not counting the five Great Houses of the Battletech universe...

Finally, there is an immediacy and a disjointedness that is required of RPG rulebooks that denies literary asperations: with the exception of play examples, I think it's really hard to get in to story-teller mode in a rulebook and keep it as a rulebook (see WW above).

Falconer wrote:Why are there shelves and shelves of meaningless garbage, and not one immortal classic among them?

I once wondered this with regards to video games, and I think the answer is the same in either case: Because games are not art or literature.

First of all, as it is now games are the most easily replacable entertainment product--all people see are the rules, and once they have those they don't care about much else. Pretty much, its accepted at face value that any new games (or new versions of old games) that get released will "patch" the flaws in the old. That's why people look at you weird if you say you prefer AD&D 1e or even OD&D and wonder why you think the original Legend of Zelda is better than the Twilight Princess.

Secondly, people are always trying to fit game products into the same criteria that they would use for a classic book or movie, but the thing is, games are not books or movies! They're vitally different by the very sake of the fact that a player has to be in control of the action. We can have stories with depth of social relevance or whatever other standard because of the very virtue that such standards are being applied to a fixed, developed story in which an author guides us along, bringing our attention to what we need to see. Games do not have that. I mean, you could create this evil empire that was once very America-like until a sorry legislation ruined it, but its very possible for a player to completely miss that part of the story and think he's just fighting Generic Evil Empire B. Unless you make the story linear, in which case you would be better off reading a book.

Finally, the fact is that games, especially roleplaying games, are almost entirely corperate-controlled, which in most people's minds totally nixes any idea that they might be art or literature (kinda hypocritically since movies are in the same boat, but no one ever thinks about that), because after all, a corperate "product" can't be literature--much the same way that Michelangelo is an artist for sculpting a statue of David yet a He-Man action figure is just a "product."

So I answered your late-night rambling with some noon-rambling of my own. Hope I wasn't too tangential.

I guess one problem may lay in that we try to categorize RPG material like literature. Granted, Gygax's work is "classic" reading in the realm of RPGs but as noted, if you try to compare it to real literature-- frankly put -- it's schlock. Even if you cram it into the Sci-Fi/Fantasy writers market it is mid-ranged to lower upper-range at best. This isn't too bad considering the format.

There are individuals like Gygax within the RPG market that does/did write brilliant prose in their rule books and modules but it could never be considered grand literature IMO. But it can be, if insisted on, be put into its own category and in that instance by all means Gygax tops the list. To that list I would also add the likes of Sandy Peterson and Keith Herber and possibly a few other of the Call of Cthulhu writers. I would also have to include the Keith brothers for many of the pieces they created for games such as Traveller where they showed their brilliant writing ability that later became loved in their novels. I can't recall their names at the moment but I think also deserved mentioning in this category are some of the writers for Digest Group Publications who contributed some very good pieces of work -- game wise and just for general reading wise -- for Traveller.

I would dearly love to add Marc Miller to the list but even though his Traveller books make up the one of the top three RPGs of all time be it Classic Traveller, MegaTraveller, or the other Traveller incarnations, his writing is for the most part flat and dull IMO. Like reading a printer manual. However as I mentioned above there are many contributing writers for the Traveller Universe that wrote some brilliant pieces that I think could easily fall into the upper levels of this category. The same could be said for some of the contributors of Cyberpunk.

Without a doubt, to me at least, would be many for the contributing writers for Battletech. Most people that are not familiar with the game, do not realize that at least 75% or the source books is novelization work and few pieces could be considered poor writing -- granted there are some exceptions but nothing can be great all the time.

I think one of the key things here that is a tell-tale sign if the work is going to have potential as a great read is the exact same sign of any ones work form any other market -- they must have the foundational background in the genre. They must be well read in that genre but they also must be diversely well read.

Of course this assumes they have any talent for writing to begin with. Heh.
Regardless of their foundations, if they write like hacks and do nothing to improve the writing skill then they will never put out a "good read."

JR

dcs wrote:

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:I would suggest that Graeme Davis, Jim Bambra and Phil Gallagher's work for the original Warhammer approached literary quality. At the very least, reading through The Enemy Within campaign was more enjoyable than trying to GM it.

Did you deliberately leave out Carl Sargent?

I'm fairly certain that Carl Sargent didn't write the portions of the WFRP rulebooks or TEW adventures that I consider to approach literary quality. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Then there are induhviduals like me, who judge all rulebooks, modules and other gaming publications, upon their technical merits. How good is the material itself and how clearly is its presentation? If the writing is good, or entertaining, that's just a bonus, but not a prerequisite.

If I'm reading for pleasure, then there's plenty of Lovecraft, Moorcock, Howard, Hambly, Clarke and Heinlein out there to keep me happy.

Note though, that this is how I grew up. I had my books, and I had my games. Most of the games I played were the old 3M, AH & SPI games from the late 60's and through the 70's. By the time I started RPGs in 1980, the demarcation between rulebooks and novels was firmly hardwired into my brain.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:I'm fairly certain that Carl Sargent didn't write the portions of the WFRP rulebooks or TEW adventures that I consider to approach literary quality. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

He wrote "The Power behind the Throne" and "Empire in Flames."

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:Because anyone who can produce something better than garbage is likely writing non-RPG books for way more money.

I could be hurt, you know.

TheRedPriest wrote:Then there induhviduals like me, who judge all rulebooks, modules and other gaming publications, upon their technical merits. How good is the material itself and how clearly is its presentation? If the writing is good, or entertaining, that's just a bonus, but not a prerequisite.

(Snippage)

...the demarcation between rulebooks and novels was firmly hardwired into my brain.

I think I fall more into this category as well. I hadn't really thought about the proposed thought here in this thread until I first read the post. I just can't see trying to put game books into literary category standards aside from it being something just to muse about. Granted it makes for interesting discussion but it really is apples and oranges. As you said it is defiantly a bonus when a RPG writer has the ability, and takes advantage of said ability, then puts brilliant prose into his manual or module.

Of course there is a downside to this as well. In the example of Gygax, because of his use of language many people found following his explanations and examples sometimes difficult. In a rule book -- technical manual first and foremost what is being presented must be clear and concise. This is regardless of the "literary" content. If the literary content confuses the issue no matter how brilliant then the effort is counter productive.

JR

I really enjoyed reading and running the Enemy Within Campaign and the War Hammer Fantasy Roleplaying Rulebook is well written. The same cannot be said for some of the drek I have elsewhere encountered. Wizards are noticably releasing more adventures this year and last than in previous years. I took the time recently to read the excerpts for Scourge of the Howling Horde and Barrow of the Forgotten King, and I was not in the slightest impressed. The prose was awful.
Mechanics need to presented clearly and accurately, but that's not really sufficient for a Roleplaying Game product. The prose and artwork should be capable of firing the imagination as well. It doesn't have to be great literature, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be a good read.

Some of my favorite designers who I think best exemplarize this "middle ground" we've been discussing:

Greg Costikyan- Paranoia 2nd ed.(an absolute riot to read) Price of Freedom, Ghostbusters(literally sidesplitting).

Jonathan Tweet- Over the Edge(a nice thick book with about 3 pages worth of rules and the rest of the book given over to mind-blowing goodness) Ars Magica(detail, detail, detail-all well-wrtten).

Eric Wujcik- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness(not my fave system, but very detailed and an easy read, with Eastman/Laird art).

Kevin Simbeida- Palladium Fantasy 1st ed.("Hi, i'm Kevin-welcome to my game." Later Palladium games lost a bit of the early clarity and enthusiasm as Palladium tried to make the Core rules fit every genre, but this one was clear and true as a silver bell).

Greg Stafford- Pendragon(an absolute labor of love, and it shows, esp. the 3rd through 5th editions where the rules have been polished and expanded a touch. 4th was a bit roughly indexed though).

order99 wrote:Eric Wujcik- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness(not my fave system, but very detailed and an easy read, with Eastman/Laird art).

Surely Wujcik's work on the Amber Diceless rpg is his greater achievement?

Greg Stafford- Pendragon(an absolute labor of love, and it shows, esp. the 3rd through 5th editions where the rules have been polished and expanded a touch. 4th was a bit roughly indexed though).

Agreed. And arguably his Prince Valiant Storytelling Game is even better (and hugely influential on all the "narrativist"/indie/Forge-y games that have come since). And of course his Glorantha work for RuneQuest (mostly done in collaboration with Sandy Petersen) isn't to be discounted: Cults of Prax (with Steve Perrin), Griffin Mountain (with Paul Jaquays and Rudy Kraft), Trollpak, Glorantha: Genertela, Crucible of the Hero Wars, Elder Secrets of Glorantha -- all pure rpg gold.

Good GOD, how could I have left Prince Valiant off the list?

Cream-colored paper, Hal Foster panels on nearly every page, awarding of rewards to Players(giving them limited GM power for a scene), the tone of the writing...
PV isn't a game, it's an epiphany in book form. thanks for reminding me.

As much as I enjoyed the Amber RPG books by Mr. Wujcik, I have never had the pleasure of trying them out-too niche for my last few groups,who insist on a concrete rules framework and randomizers. TMNT however, they took for a leisurely ten-week spin...definitely the more accessible of the two.

Which reminds me, Sword and Sorcerer by Ron Edwards is one of the most informative RPG genre supplements I have ever read-a complete dissection and evaluation of the S&S experience, a quick history and lists of essential S&S sources in media, and information on running an S&S saga with all the trimmings!
I'm not a huge fan of the Sorcerer system(which is pretty nifty really, but not my taste) but i've used several of the spin-offs for other games.

Gods Below, you'd think I was a compensated spokesperson or something lately...