Article: EUOLogy about RPG Campaigns as Books

[EUOL]

So, what do you guys think?  Reference to article:

http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=998

edit: because the link pointed int he wrong place.

[Spriggan]

You forgot one thing, the most successful RPG to novel(s) ever, Lodoss War.  When there are about 12 novels, countless Manga, TV series, and several mini-series all based off this guys D&D campaings its worth noteing.

Also, I don't think Tage likes Dew, so #1 probaly wont work.

[EUOL]

Note that I said "Good Fantasy Novels", Sprig.

Lodoss war is good manga, but it's pretty terrible fantasy.  Derivative, uninspired worldbuilding mixed with cliched characters and overused plots.  It gets by with interesting animation, good voice acting, and a nice sense of humor.  I suspect that the novels aren't that great, however.  

I could be wrong.  However, I wasn't looking at success here--there are dozens upon dozens of D&D themed books.  Most of them are terrible.  A few are decent, and even fewer of those are actually good.  (And even those have very little broad appeal--they're really only good if you're a young boy inside of their demographic.  Even still, however, 'good' D&D themed books are usually pretty terrible fantasies)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Well, of course there are exceptions. I find Feist's writing quite likely to be similar (I can't prove it, but the nature of some of the exchanges and plot progressions scream RPG Adventure). ANd he's successful.

Just like Terry Brooks proves that you can get rich cloning Tolkien doesn't mean it's a remotely likely possibility.

Thing is, breaking into writing is hard enough. And compared even to that a book based on an RPG, that you're NOT publishing in conjunction with teh game designer has such a small chance of getting published that even eternally optimistic fiction writers say it's impossible to do.

And they're right.

[Spriggan]

Well to be fair you've never read the book since they're japanese only.  I've read one, and it's better then the anime.  Many of the Manga are very good.  Also the manga/anime would have never been made if the books weren't somewhat good since no one in Japan reads novels.

And if you're going to rag on a book you've never read for useing Cliches then you should rag on 99% of everything written and just tell people not to bother to wite since they'll never be original.

[EUOL]

Sprig,
If you'll notice what I wrote above:

I suspect that the novels aren't that great, however.

You'll see that that I used the word 'suspect.'  And, on the very next line, I note that I could be wrong--precisely because I've never read the books.  However, if the characters are the same as they are in the movies, then they're just not very original.  Now, they might have been original in Japan at the time they came out, but that was probably because most people over there hadn't read the same stories from America that the author was borrowing his characters from.

People read fantasy BECAUSE of the originality, Sprig.  And, indeed, I think you could call me an expert on what makes good fantasy.  I get paid large amounts to be an expert on what makes good fantasy.  

Right now, a large part of what makes good fantasy is original worldbuilding.  Lodoss didn't have that.  If those books got released in the US right now, they probably wouldn't sell very well.  I could be wrong--perhaps they're far better than I assume.

However, how much better might the stories have been if, instead of lifting characters from other places, the stories had been more original?  

You don't have to be completely new to be original.  But, come on.  Grumpy dwarf?  Mysterious elf?  Youthful, untested--but earnest--human hero?  Wise-cracking thief?  You don't have to stretch very far to get away from these worn-out cliches.  

(Note, Sprig.  I'm trying hard not to rag on Lodoss too much, since I actually liked the mangas a lot--the second more than the first.  I'm just trying to tell newer writers why they probably won't have much success trying to publish a story based on their RPG setting.)

[Spriggan]

I know you're not ragging on them EUOL, I'm just defendnig my arguements a bit.

Yes many of the characters are very generic, they do come off better in the books/manga but about as much as any other fantasy with those archtypes.

As for the world itself, it's very cool and well done.  Sadly you don't get much of it since the main story takes place on an island like Brittan or Japan.  I would argue that's it's a well developed world history and civilzation wize that uses some generics.

Back to the actual article's point, I think you're very misguided in many of your statments.  Basicaly you're argueing that no RPG campaing could ever be "original" which is wrong.  I think you could write very good fantasy useing the basic plot and characters from an RPG group.  Though you'd have to make some changes.

I wouldn't write the book as a steb-by-step recounting of the adventures.  I'd instead take the general of what happened and use that, so cutting out all the silly thing players do, some of the sidetracks and not use much of the dialouge.  There certainly would be other things to change, but it's a foundation to build on.  Especially for plotting and working in conflicts.

I think it's very arrogent to say no "good" fantasy could ever come of it.  Good is subjective.  Yes you get paid to write, but good to most people (that aren't snobbs) is anything that sells well.  Great things are different.  And frankly EUOL you could write the greatist novel ever and have it bomb, and then you know what? you wouldn't be getting paid anymore to write "good" fantasty becaue you obvioulsy were good enough to sell.  It never matters how great an author thinks their book is, all that matter is how good the public thinks it is.


See my point?  It's more constructive to say "Learn from your RPG games" instead of "give up and try another method".  I know you think good is breaking away from the norm, and many potential writers flex their creativity through RPGs (you certainly did).

[Fellfrosch]

I don't think his point was that RPG campaigns can't be original, just that novels based on RPG campaigns can't be good. Which I happen to agree with.

(And yes, good is subjective, but I have trouble believing that "anyone who isn't a snob" would say that sales equal quality.)

[Spriggan]

Sales do equal quality.  You may not like it, but if people are buying it they like it.  To them it quality.  Something I learned a long time ago is just becaue I don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible it just means my tastes are different.

I would take a story and world like Lodoss over Harry Potter any day, that doesn't mean I think HP doesn't have any thing good about it, I just happen not to like it.  Yet, sadly, many people think I'm stupid or have poor taste becaue of this, but the truth is I have different tastes.  I care about how much something enertains me, not how artisitc it is.

EUOL, as for world building: I think plorting and character are imesureably more important then worldbuilding (which I know it your "thing").  I don't care how cool a world you designed is, if the story sucks and the characters are likable I won't like it.  If the story and characters are good I don't care where it takes place.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm a bad example, but how many of you who are not self-described music snobs hate Britney Spears? YEah, Fell's point demonstrated.

The points made in the 12 item list are not to be taken as genuine, as I understand. No one is going to try to include Mountain Dew. That's a "duh" moment. But his point still stands that good examples of RPG Campaign-to-novel adaptations are far and few between. Take out anything remotely good published by Wizards of the Coast or another company in a game world they'd already created, and you're left with Raymond E. Feist and Lodoss War. I've not read the later, but the former is very hit-and-miss in terms of quality.

Interestingly, Feist's good ones are the ones where he develops new ideas, not where he takes from someone else, or even just rests on the ideas he came up with himself, which just solidifies the point: don't adapt an existing world, create a new one. It'll turn out better.

You then have a SINGLE example of a violation of the rule. Considering how many hundreds of fantasy books there are, I don't see how it can be argued that this sort of adaptation isn't almost always a bad idea.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Sales do equal quality.  You may not like it, but if people are buying it they like it.  To them it quality.  Something I learned a long time ago is just becaue I don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible it just means my tastes are different.

However, just because your tastes are different does not mean that the thing you hate is good. Much of it is quite, quite bad.

[Spriggan]

Well yes SE, but if that thing is a comercial success then there has to be something good about it.

[Fellfrosch]

"Something good about it" does still not equal "good" in my eyes. Let's compare this to food: say that somebody wants to become a chef. EUOL's argument (translated liberally to a food medium) is that trying to do your best and create something original will result in a better meal. Your argument seems to be that McDonalds has served billions of burgers, so therefore they must be pretty frickin' awesome burgers. I can't buy into that.

There is good fantasy and there is bad fantasy--I think we can all agree on that point; I think we can further agree that bad fantasy outweighs the good by a significant margin. But the fact is that both kinds exist, and I am not being a snob when I point out the difference between them. Nor am I being a snob when I say that book A, which was exceptionally well-written, is better than book B, which was kind of derivative but had a better marketing team.

I'd say that the only real signifier of quality is time: 50 years from now, which book/movie/song do people still read/watch/listen to?

[Spriggan]

"Something good about it" does still not equal "good" in my eyes. Let's compare this to food: say that somebody wants to become a chef. EUOL's argument (translated liberally to a food medium) is that trying to do your best and create something original will result in a better meal. Your argument seems to be that McDonalds has served billions of burgers, so therefore they must be pretty frickin' awesome burgers. I can't buy into that.

I never said anything of the sorts Fell.  What I'm saying is since McDonalds sells billons of burgers there good.  Just plain and simple good.  Not Friggen awsome.  If there wasn't something to like about them then no one would eat there.  I'm argueing if something is a comercial success then there has to be a reson people are buying it, and that reason is, to them, the item (in this case a book) is good.  And it seams to me you're all argueing "if I don't like something anyone who does is a moron with no taste".

There is good fantasy and there is bad fantasy--I think we can all agree on that point; I think we can further agree that bad fantasy outweighs the good by a significant margin. But the fact is that both kinds exist, and I am not being a snob when I point out the difference between them. Nor am I being a snob when I say that book A, which was exceptionally well-written, is better than book B, which was kind of derivative but had a better marketing team.

No you're being a snob if you say book B is horrible and I'm surprised anyone likes it or it was ever made, yet book B sold 100 times what book A did.  It's fine to have tastes and like other things.  My Snob remark was directed at people that cannot see commercial success as a sign of some measure of quality, which I'm calling good.  It dosen't mean the book is the best thing ever written, just that it deserves reconition of selling.

I'd say that the only real signifier of quality is time: 50 years from now, which book/movie/song do people still read/watch/listen to?

The only people that would read something from 50 years ago are students (becsaue their teachers are makeing them) or hard core fans.  I think that's a horrible way to judge quality, especially for entertainment which changes so fast.

[Fellfrosch]

If you're equating sales with quality, then you have to say that incredible sales equals incredible quality. I don't see how you can get away from it.

As for discounting older media, I don't think you can do that--people read old books, watch old movies, and listen to old songs all the time. I can't tell you the number of people I knew in Junior High who said their favorite movie was Gone with the Wind, and that was made decades before they were even born. With books I think it's even more pronounced--how old is Lord of the Rings, and Dune, and Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov and tons of others? People still read that stuff, and I'd wager most of them are neither students or hard core fans--they're people just getting into sci-fi who've heard it's really good. That's how I got into it. If you're talking about a purely transitive form of popularity, where something is only "good" during the brief window where it's flying off the shelves and the author is interviewed on Good Morning America, then we're having two separate discussions here.

I woudl say it comes down to this (returning once again to EUOL's article): you can write a novel based on your RPG campaign, but it won't be as good as one based on original ideas and characters. You might reach some level of success with the former, but you'd acheive a greater level of success with the latter (assuming that we don't count direct licenses of media properties, which are a completely different animal that I don't believe EUOL was referring to). It's also extremely rare that an RPG-based novel acheives any kind of success at all--we've only been able to name two thus far in our thread.