Post by abbysdad on Jan 20, 2011 23:14:09 GMT -5
I'm in the middle of writing a lot of things right now.
A kids novel. Some non-fiction pieces. Several proposals and reports for work. More stuff for OTW. A research paper for ASME. The next Bounty book so that the Crew can begin commenting on it. Etc.
But what I find really interesting are the differences in each form of the written medium.
For example, what you can do with a story in a novel versus a game book. Jesse Schell has a lot to say in his book on Game Design about how to build an certain experience for the audience using a game. I don't think I can speak as eloquently to that concept. This post is just about some observations on why the game material I'm working on is different from the other fiction I'm working on.
Because it strikes me that the purpose and tools for building a story into a game book are really different from what you do in a novel. For example, game books (and magazines like No Quarter) are poured over many times, sometimes in rapid succession for details on rules, other times slowly for background on game factions, art, modeling hints, and many other things. But the point of the matter is that they are read many, many times in a shorter time frame compared to a novel.
As far as details that you can have in a game book then, you can layer things and leave hints in different ways than you would when writing a novel in the currently popular style (novels and works of great literature used to be praised for how difficult they were to get through...not anymore) so that people reading the book can pick out different things each time they read a passage.
Game books need to have clear and concise rules and engaging background. I really do believe that because of how they are used writers should use different ways of telling stories and building in details. I think they have to use different tools because the goal of a story in a game book is not just to entertain, but to inspire someone else to create.
Or more precisely, to use physical game pieces to imitate the details described in the book with other people using the rules of the game.
This is very different from other forms of fiction. If I write something that people think is great, but they don't want to play the game or try out that situation with their friends using the game rules after reading it, I failed. If I write something that is mediocre, but people go crazy for the ideas and want to use minis so that they can play out similar situations using the game rules, I did great! Of course, Clint and Rob don't accept mediocre work, but I think I made my point. The challenge with writing for a mini game is to tell a good story in a way that engages people and inspires them to create and use their toy soldiers to play out scenarios with their friends. The standard is even higher for an RPG, because you can't necessarily fall back on something that is seen and touched in the game, like a miniature.
That object, the goal of using a story to motivate players to create and imitate, is very different from comics, short stories, novels, and even movies and video games. It's what makes historical wargames unique and attractive forms of entertainment even if you already know how the story turned out in real life. It's what makes people try to recreate Adeptus Custodes armies in 40K. It's what leads us to research details like the Kaminski brigade or various phrases in the National Parks and Organic Act of 1913.
It's what I hope we do with all of the content we provide in OTW and Darkson Designs game books.
But what do you guys think? How are we doing? Let us know.
Cheers,
Chris
P.S. Once again, I'd just like to say that if you do like what we do, there are two people you need to thank. First, thank Rob for having the vision to support an idea and then getting the art, story and game pieces together to compliment it. Then, thank Clint, for keeping the people who contribute in line and holding them close to his own high standards.
A kids novel. Some non-fiction pieces. Several proposals and reports for work. More stuff for OTW. A research paper for ASME. The next Bounty book so that the Crew can begin commenting on it. Etc.
But what I find really interesting are the differences in each form of the written medium.
For example, what you can do with a story in a novel versus a game book. Jesse Schell has a lot to say in his book on Game Design about how to build an certain experience for the audience using a game. I don't think I can speak as eloquently to that concept. This post is just about some observations on why the game material I'm working on is different from the other fiction I'm working on.
Because it strikes me that the purpose and tools for building a story into a game book are really different from what you do in a novel. For example, game books (and magazines like No Quarter) are poured over many times, sometimes in rapid succession for details on rules, other times slowly for background on game factions, art, modeling hints, and many other things. But the point of the matter is that they are read many, many times in a shorter time frame compared to a novel.
As far as details that you can have in a game book then, you can layer things and leave hints in different ways than you would when writing a novel in the currently popular style (novels and works of great literature used to be praised for how difficult they were to get through...not anymore) so that people reading the book can pick out different things each time they read a passage.
Game books need to have clear and concise rules and engaging background. I really do believe that because of how they are used writers should use different ways of telling stories and building in details. I think they have to use different tools because the goal of a story in a game book is not just to entertain, but to inspire someone else to create.
Or more precisely, to use physical game pieces to imitate the details described in the book with other people using the rules of the game.
This is very different from other forms of fiction. If I write something that people think is great, but they don't want to play the game or try out that situation with their friends using the game rules after reading it, I failed. If I write something that is mediocre, but people go crazy for the ideas and want to use minis so that they can play out similar situations using the game rules, I did great! Of course, Clint and Rob don't accept mediocre work, but I think I made my point. The challenge with writing for a mini game is to tell a good story in a way that engages people and inspires them to create and use their toy soldiers to play out scenarios with their friends. The standard is even higher for an RPG, because you can't necessarily fall back on something that is seen and touched in the game, like a miniature.
That object, the goal of using a story to motivate players to create and imitate, is very different from comics, short stories, novels, and even movies and video games. It's what makes historical wargames unique and attractive forms of entertainment even if you already know how the story turned out in real life. It's what makes people try to recreate Adeptus Custodes armies in 40K. It's what leads us to research details like the Kaminski brigade or various phrases in the National Parks and Organic Act of 1913.
It's what I hope we do with all of the content we provide in OTW and Darkson Designs game books.
But what do you guys think? How are we doing? Let us know.
Cheers,
Chris
P.S. Once again, I'd just like to say that if you do like what we do, there are two people you need to thank. First, thank Rob for having the vision to support an idea and then getting the art, story and game pieces together to compliment it. Then, thank Clint, for keeping the people who contribute in line and holding them close to his own high standards.
