book reviews

[calimac]

People write books on really interesting subjects, and then libraries buy them, so I don't have to. Unfortunately, sometimes the subject is more interesting than anything the author has to say about it.

Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do by Tom Vanderbilt (Knopf)
Lots of endnotes (yay!) but not quite sure whether it's a serious exposition or an anecdotal survey, and winds up being not quite either. Has some good points on blowback: perceived safety makes drivers take more risks; congestion pricing intended to repel people attracts them on the grounds that, at that price, it must be worth it. But overall it's a watery text. Doubtful about the significance of some of the statistics. E.g.: Half of all accidents occur at intersections. Sure, and aren't half of all cars crossing your path at intersections, so why should this be surprising? And: More accidents come from sober drivers than from drunk drivers. Sure, but you didn't say (and apparently didn't mean) per capita, and aren't most drivers sober? I'm reminded of the apocryphal H.R. manager who was sure employees were misusing sick leave, as 40% of all sick days taken were Monday or Friday.

American Nerd: The Story of My People by Benjamin Nugent (Scribner)
At its best on nerds in classic literature, from Mary Bennett and Viktor Frankenstein on. Not enough on why the authors treat these characters as flat caricatures, though. Separates nerd social ineptness from that of the jerk, but without identifying the latter. Descriptions of the LASFS (which it calls a "sci-fi" club, ugh) do not make it sound like anything I'd enjoy. So am I a nerd or not? Most thought-provoking moment: the description of D&D, p. 48-49. Says that Gygax actually found Tolkien "very boring" and set up D&D to boost the "male competitiveness." So why is it that I find Tolkien fascinating but was bored to distraction when - at friends' behest - I tried playing D&D in college? I'm getting something different out of the whole fantasy complex than my friends who penned heartfelt obits for Gygax, and I'm trying to figure out what it is.

Comments

[mithriltabby]

Role-playing games are very much a matter of what you put into them. The traditional dungeon crawl doesn’t have much story to it: a party goes in, fights monsters, wins treasure, enjoys success. But it also doesn’t require a lot of setup, either. On the other hand, you can develop a rich world with a lot of depth, put together complex situations, and turn the players loose to interact with it. (e.g.: The game world of Glorantha has a very detailed mythology, and I’ve heard a lot of interesting stories come out of campaigns in that setting.) Creating a story is a lot harder than mapping out a dungeon and populating it with monsters, though; I’ve been a GM for going on 20 years now and am still figuring out how to keep things engaging for the players, putting in just enough hints that they’re having the fun of figuring things out without the frustration of being stumped, and creating situations in layers that are gradually exposed as they interact with elements from each layer.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I do not think that the thousands of devoted D&D players out there have simply all stumbled across outstanding dungeonmasters, such as you are trying to be. Indeed, my fellow players on my own abortive try with the game were, when last heard from, still at it, decades later. There is something innate that is being responded to positively or negatively here, regardless of whether it's done particularly well.