Quote from: David RMaybe it's a geek thing I'm clueless about.

There are many, many things you "are clueless about," bucko.

This includes your misguided opinion--stated in that passive-aggressive whining tone which countermands what's left of your feeble effort to pass for this board's voice of reason, tolerance and common sense--that gaming circa 1980 was about "emulating" novels.

1) It wasn't.

2) The term "emulation" is a) a pretentious, cop-out mantra from b) a later era.

3) Yes, Virginia: There are indeed good and (gasp) bad books, movies, bands, artworks. The horror.

Quote from: flyingmiceIt doesn't translate well to plot+dialog+prose.

In a professional writer's hands it might.  Stuff coming out of games is more like the raw material of such.

I will say though that I've played with a couple people that have a real gift for the gab. To wrap things up an eloquent bow. It's nice. Me, not so much. Like last night I stood up and mimed slapping my ass cheek crying out "I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty"...it was about a Tolkien-esque elf.  It was a goofy moment. It was funny if you were there. No really.

I think the "good" and "bad" descriptors are not so much about a work's final quality but initial intent. It's George Orwell, I think, who discuesses this separation, and the business of "good bad novels, bad bad novels, bad good novels and good good novels" in his essay on detective fiction (is it? I forget. Maybe it's G K Chesterton.)

If you take that definition of "bad" then I think, yes, there's some validity in the idea.

Ned

Quote from: DwightIn a professional writer's hands it might.  Stuff coming out of games is more like the raw material of such.

Well I am a professional writer, as I write technical manuals, but not a professional novelist... It doesn't help.

QuoteI will say though that I've played with a couple people that have a real gift for the gab. To wrap things up an eloquent bow. It's nice. Me, not so much. Like last night I stood up and mimed slapping my ass cheek crying out "I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty"...it was about a Tolkien-esque elf.  It was a goofy moment. It was funny if you were there. No really.

Hahaha! That sounds like the sort of stupid stuff that happens at my table! They are all so witty and amusing at the time!

-clash

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyI think the "good" and "bad" descriptors are not so much about a work's final quality but initial intent.

I'm not sure I understand what this means. I hope it's not "the effort counts." Because, well, it does not. What's a good good bad bad etc. novel?

It's so weird...I watch 2 to 4 horrible movies every Saturday night with my girlfriend and some local pals. And we want to do 1-shots vaguely based on half of them...it really is scary.

I agree with the reduced expectations theory. Sure, some of us are theater people, but we don't see roleplaying as a craft - it's a way to have fun and crack up over our antics.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThere are many, many things you "are clueless about," bucko.

This includes your misguided opinion--stated in that passive-aggressive whining tone which countermands what's left of your feeble effort to pass for this board's voice of reason, tolerance and common sense--that gaming circa 1980 was about "emulating" novels.

1) It wasn't.

2) The term "emulation" is a) a pretentious, cop-out mantra from b) a later era.

3) Yes, Virginia: There are indeed good and (gasp) bad books, movies, bands, artworks. The horror.

Poor Pierce, I guess rushing to be Sett's dictionary has taken it's toll.  

1) Really? So nobody in the old days (and now) were inspired/based their games on the novels I mentioned.

2) a) *shrug* depends on what you trying to emulate b) probably but that does not mean is was not going on in practice at an earlier time

3) Yes sweetheart and that's the point. It's not that bad novels/movies make for good gaming. Source material is irrelevent.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWe all know that, Bradford et al. have driven home the point tirelessly, but IIRC we haven't discussed in detail how come it's valid.

What are the elements of a crappy novel or movie that work in a game but fizzle in the source? More importantly, why is it that they do work at all rather than fizzle as well?

I'm not talking merely about straight-up licenses BTW.

Many reasons.

One reason would be that bad art works in RPGs because it can be analysed and used more readily than great art. Great art often is often loved for very complicated reasons and requires us to exercise much of our mind in considering and enjoying it, while bad art requires only a portion of our minds, can be picked apart without doing serious violence to the whole. Because we can readily understand it, and readily deploy the elements we enjoy, it can be integrated into our worlds and our stories more easily.

For example, it's very easy to tell a Star Wars story without Han, Luke, or Leia because we can break apart the Star Wars story into the world and its style, the characters, the metaphysics, etc. and treat each of them separately very easily On the other hand, try breaking apart say, Gravity's Rainbow or Beowulf into such categories without just making a mess of it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI'm not sure I understand what this means. I hope it's not "the effort counts." Because, well, it does not. What's a good good bad bad etc. novel?

Orwell deals with this distinction several times, especially in his consideration of Kipling's poems, Boy's Adventure Stories, and Chesterton. It's not really germane to the topic at hand, though. Orwell wants to distinguish technical skill, subject matter, political leanings and effectiveness from one another, and argues that a work that is good or bad in one or several of these areas may be the opposite in others.

For example, he thinks that Kipling has excellent style and that his poetry is very effective in causing the reader or listener to feel the emotions Kipling wishes them to, but because Kipling is a Colonel Blimp-style imperialist who seeks to arouse childish sentiments, he is a "good bad poet" - he has a masterful command of the skills and ideas required to be a hack for power.

Oh, so it's just ye olde form/content dichotomy? Enh.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThis includes your misguided opinion--stated in that passive-aggressive whining tone which countermands what's left of your feeble effort to pass for this board's voice of reason, tolerance and common sense--

Don't be a pussy, Pierce. If you want to call some a cocksmock, just come out and do it. Leave that "passive-aggressive" nonsense on rpg.net's Tangency where it belongs.

On topic, I still say that since most game sessions are not artistic masterpieces, the things that make bad fiction bad - overacting and cliches - are precisely the things that make a good game session fun. Not memorable or meaningful, perhaps, but fun.

As others have said, that does not mean that good fiction can't also inspire good gaming, gaming which is fulfilling as well as fun.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDon't be a pussy, Pierce. If you want to call some a cocksmock, just come out and do it. Leave that "passive-aggressive" nonsense on rpg.net's Tangency where it belongs.

That's precisely what I told David R, pudding head.

QuoteOn topic,

On topic, you're a pudding head.

I mean the accusation of being passive-aggressive should remain on rpg.net's Tangency. Thus the quotation marks.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat are the elements of a crappy novel or movie that work in a game but fizzle in the source? More importantly, why is it that they do work at all rather than fizzle as well?

I think some things that don't work so well in novels work well in RPG's:

1) Serial fiction -- most novels and movies are fairly contained (even Stephen King tomes), but RPG's can run episode-to-episode indefinitely. Long-running games are better modeled as TV-shows or old fashioned serials.

2) Formula & Genre -- These can help people get quickly and accurately engaged in the game fiction. In novels, they're often viewed as a crutch or the result of insufficient creativity but RPGs generally require everyone to collaborate improvisationally and genre / formula give a well-defined framework for that. I'll note that I think formula and genre get a bad rap from the lit crowd; I don't think they automatically make a novel, movie, or game bad... but I'm probably a minority opinion.

3) Character stereotypes -- Same as above, but I'd recommend being more careful with these. Having the inn keeper be a cardboard cut out of every inn keeper everywhere would be painful in a novel, but in a game it's a useful key that we don't need to spend too much time interacting with him. Overuse of this kind of thing though leads to a rather cardboard feeling game.

4)  Action as a substitute for characterization -- In movies (especially) action scenes tend to be wholly external so you only get to see what the character does. In RPG's (and, to an extent, in novels), you can get a pretty good idea about motivations, etc. during combat and action. Clearly this can work in books and movies and can fail in RPGs, but I've found it works better in RPG's than I had expected.

That's a few quick thoughts.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineFor example, he thinks that Kipling has excellent style and that his poetry is very effective in causing the reader or listener to feel the emotions Kipling wishes them to, but because Kipling is a Colonel Blimp-style imperialist who seeks to arouse childish sentiments, he is a "good bad poet" - he has a masterful command of the skills and ideas required to be a hack for power.

That is what Orwell says, but it's not why he calls Kipling a 'good bad poet'. The badness lies in the vulgarity of his expression ('most of Kipling's verse is so horribly vulgar that it gives one the same sensation as one gets from watching a third-rate music-hall performer recite "The Pigtail of Wu Fang Fu" with the purple limelight on his face'). On the other hand, Orwell claims that Kipling did actually write some good lines ('and yet there is much of it that is capable of giving pleasure to people who know what poetry means'). So it's not actually as simple as form vs. content.