On DMing and "writing books"

[Asha'man]

It is a commonly expressed sentiment both on these boards and in the community at large that "If a DM wants to 'tell a story', he should get away from the screen and go write a book", or words to that effect. On reflection, though, I think that's really both rude and disingenious. Of course, what most people mean when they say this is that the players' desires and decisions should have an impact on the story and that railroading the players through a plot "scripted" long in advance is bad. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

But the DM is a participant in the activity too, not just a facilitator. He does, and for fairness' sake let's say 70% because I've met some very involved and dedicated players, but 70% of the work required to have a campaign, what with making NPCs, dungeons and developing the setting, but also planning for the progression of a campaign with antagonists' plots, in-game events and larger story arcs. Of course they want that work to pay off in the course of the game. My point here is not that DMing is in any way a thankless or onerous task, or that DMs should get more "credit" or privilege, in most groups I know the atmosphere between DM and players is one of mutual appreciation, and most DMs I've met DM because they enjoy the activity. But that is kind of the point: Why do the DMs like to DM?

There can of course be many reasons. Some like to exercise their skills with game mechanics and use them to challenge the players. Some like in-character roleplay, and DMing is fun for them because they can portray many different characters. For some the game is a contest, and albeit (hopefully, or the game will crash and burn) a friendly one between the PCs and the BBEG, not players and DM, no less of a battle of wits for that.
I think, though, that what most DMs get their enjoyment from is in one sense story-telling. Not, necessarily, in a "DM of the Rings" way, where they have it all mapped out in advance (this is the style 'go write a book' is meant to decry) but in a spirit of curiosity and desire to show off their creativity.

When a DM places a hook for an adventure or story arc, or even pitches a campaign idea if it's focused enough, they are in effect saying "Hey guys, wouldn't it be cool if [You got to fight X/you found X/you found X but it was cursed/You had to make an alliance with X or there would be war/X betrayed you, how would you stop the war then?] Because this is really what planning adventures as a DM comes down to. Sometimes the players say, in effect, "Not really" and go off to do their own thing, but if that happens every time you will be pretty frustrated, and I'd say rightfully so. Again: A DM puts in a lot of effort, and of course he'll want to see the payoff happen. Do you think Sepulchrave, Shemeska and Piratecat don't have stories they want to explore through their games? And are those games any less awesome for that? I can't imagine it should be so. The point is that there's give and take, there's dialogue both implicit and explicit; the players have a fair share of input too in what the game ultimately becomes.

Again: The DM is a participant in the campaign too, not just a facilitator. And most DMs (and most groups) want a game to be more than a string of dissociated scenarios, they want to be able to look back on it and answer the question "What was that campaign about?" with something concrete. D&D is, at least the way I see it, a creative endeavour.
It's just that the appropriate analogy of the DM/players dynamic is much more like a screenwriter pitching films to a studio than a novelist giving a live reading of his work to an audience.

Opinions or comments? Objections?

 

[howandwhy99]

Why do the DMs like to DM?

For me it's fun. I get to act out the NPCs and see how the player change the world.

I think, though, that what most DMs get their enjoyment from is in one sense story-telling. Not, necessarily, in a "DM of the Rings" way, where they have it all mapped out in advance (this is the style 'go write a book' is meant to decry) but in a spirit of curiosity and desire to show off their creativity.

I think this refers to module writers, which isn't the same thing as DMing.

Again: The DM is a participant in the campaign too, not just a facilitator.

That would be a biased DM and detrimental to roleplay. Do you really want to play a game where the DM let you win? Or made you lose? No unbiased middle ground? In my experience the answer has always been: No.

With the last few lines I believe you are making the mistake that DMing is telling a story. This falsity pretty much only exists in the tabletop roleplaying community (EDIT: and LARPing, almost forgot). It simply doesn't exist in other roleplaying communities.

 

[Tigerbunny]

I fully agree - although I'd probably take the metaphor a little further. When I'm really clicking with a group, it's less like "DM pitches, Players catch (or don't)" and more like being in the room for a good rewrite/post-show notes/workshop session. We all contribute bits and pieces of the "story" - the DM's job is to take that mess of semi-connected half-formed ideas and make something out of them. We all write the story - the DM is the director who makes it hang together.

 

[Aeolius]

For better or for worse, I view a D&D game as a "coauthored work of interactive fiction". The DM presents the Preface and the group spins the rest of the tale together. Granted, I was an English major many moons ago. My current campaign is an amalgamation of my interests in D&D, writing, and the sea.

As I am overly fond of saying - I DM, so that my hags have someone to play with. The NPCs, protagonists and antagonists alike, are my characters. They are not simply a stat block meant to be slain for XP, though that may indeed be their fate.

I enjoy DMing "on the fly". I may have some rough notes and a few beasties sketched out, but the rest comes from impromptu serendipity.

Admittedly, my style of gaming isn't for everyone. But then again, I don't DM for everyone either.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

In my experience, good DMing requires a bit of creative storytelling... The players provide the protagonists for the tale, possibly (hopefully!) with some backstory and extra plot points, but the DM must then weave them into a living, breathing environment and give them ample material with which to hone their skills and face the challenges that drive the story. My players have always responded best to situations where they have a definite sense of involvement in a larger, more convoluted tale. Seeing it unfold around them, and being part of the events that form each important twist and turn in the plot, is an exciting part of the experience.

*shrugs* I suppose your mileage may vary.

 

[Insight]

As both a DM and an author, I can tell you that trying to comingle the two is a HUGE mistake. As an author, you predestine what happens to your characters. You have full control of the characters and the outcome of your plot. Creating an adventure that's intended for the player characters to be protagonists (to drive the plot) is like writing about 1/3 of the novel: laying the foundation without any plot points.

As a DM, the best you can hope is that what you lay out (the foundation) incites the player characters (and the players driving them) to eventually get to the ending/climcatic battle/whatever that you envision. You absolutely should not (and probably can't) control the plot at any point past when you first ask, "OK. What do you do?"

I think the problem occurs when a DM decides he/she's an author and tries to control the plot past that point. There's a saying, "No plan survives beyond first contact with the enemy." I think that's wise for DMs to consider when desigining their adventures. Assume that whatever you lay out (and how effectively you do it) contributes directly to what the players choose to do, but that, after that point, you must give up direct control of the rest of the plot.

There are, of course, many correlations between novel writing and DMing (at least in terms of creating adventures). There are tips you learn from writing fiction that apply directly to creating adventures. For one thing, embedding clues and nascent plot points in your open is a great practice. Drop hints as to where the story's going. Focus on NPCs that directly affect the plot of your adventure. Consider things like theme and characterization (although, for an adventure, I wouldn't go overboard here - the players will forget the majority of this stuff by the first combat).

 

[Dausuul]

I also am a DM and a writer, and Insight is right on the money. To expand a bit:

The focus of a good D&D campaign is on the players and the actions of the PCs. In my experience, DMs who think of themselves as "telling a story" have a tendency to lose sight of that. They get all caught up in telling a story, while their players are sitting around bored and wanting to do something.

Even in a heavily-plotted campaign, the DM is only creating the shell of a story. The players are the ones doing most of the actual telling. In many ways the DM is more like a combination of director and producer than like a scriptwriter. The DM sets the stage, determines the pacing, and provides the background, but the players write the dialog and stage directions (at least for the main characters; the DM does get to do some writing where the villains and minor characters are concerned).

The chief difference, I think, is that a storyteller is trying to entertain an audience. A DM is trying to engage participants. There are certainly elements of storytelling in what the DM does, but the goal of those bits of storytelling is to give the players something to play off of, not to construct an entire narrative.

 

[Scribble]

Even in a heavily-plotted campaign, the DM is only creating the shell of a story. The players are the ones doing most of the actual telling. In many ways the DM is more like a combination of director and producer than like a scriptwriter. The DM sets the stage, determines the pacing, and provides the background, but the players write the dialog and stage directions (at least for the main characters; the DM does get to do some writing where the villains and minor characters are concerned).

Yes, I agree with this.

The DM and players are all writing a collective story.

The DM gets to set the overall plot(s) and creates a list of non-main characters, some of them being villains some being friends, and some being either or. The DM gets to decide upon the choices these characters make.

The Players get to make the main characters, and the choices of the main characters.

The dice decide the ultimate direction the story takes.

 

[Dausuul]

The dice decide the ultimate direction the story takes.

Well, there's legitimate disagreement on how much part the dice ought to have in determining the outcome (hence the invention of games like Amber), but otherwise I agree.

 

[Scribble]

Well, there's legitimate disagreement on how much part the dice ought to have in determining the outcome (hence the invention of games like Amber), but otherwise I agree.

I never actually got around to playing amber. Isn't there an ultimate decider in that game as well? I know it's not dice, but isn't there something that resolves "question" moments in the game? I thought it had to do with cards or soemthing?