GMing: What is "The Novelist?"

[GoodKingJayIII]

...he is not a novelist using the medium to tell "his" story...

Pulled from Crothian's thread on good GMing. Was going to reply there, but it got a little off topic.

I highlighted this part of FU's statement because I see the sentiment expressed fairly often, but I'm unsure of its meaning. Maybe that's because everyone here on the boards already knows what ForceUser is referring to, so I'm sorry if I'm asking an obvious question. What is the negative of refering to the GM as the "novelist"? Does it refer to a plot that is completely predetermined and the GM does everything in his power to keep the story on track (i.e., heavy railroading)? Is it because the term could exclude players as storytellers? Is it willful ignorance of the rules in favor of plot? Is it more than these things? All of them?

I ask because the term is disparaged, and yet I think we all as GMs start out as novelists. When prepping you really have no idea how players will react to a situation. The more diligent of us will plan out likely avenues down which their PCs might diverge. But sometimes it just makes sense to write the main avenue and expect your players to grab the bait. Plotting a story is very difficult; planning one with multiple lines of plot with variations on outcome and timeline is incredibly hard. I know there are some very smart people on these boards, but I venture that most of us (myself included) have a very specific battleplan in terms of plot. I think railroading is inevitable. The real question is this: did I railroad too much, and was I conspicious about it?

I have played under what I consider to be a novelist DM. There were times when I was really frustrated because I felt like I had no real choices in terms of where my PC could go. His knowledge of the rules could've been better, he led us by our noses from time to time, but he had a real flare for storytelling and great NPC personalities. I learned a lot from him, and I would play under him again if given the opportunity.

Obviously his style is not my style; if I tried to do exactly what he did, I would not do so well. What's worked for me in the past is to create a metaplot for the first adventure (which may last 3 to 4 sessions). Afterwards, if I've done my job right, there are four or five plot seeds that my players can follow. They can follow them if they like. Sometimes there may be a plot point I've created that I didn't even realize was important. They follow it and I try and work from there.

I'd just llike to understand the "GM as novelist" term: what exactly it is and how to prevent from doing it. We're all storytellers to a degree, and I think it would be very easy for any one of us to get caught up in what we create. How do we avoid that and let the players be storytellers as well?

 

[Hjorimir]

FU and I are old friends and often talk about these kinds of things. While I won't speak for FU himself, my saying has always been: DMs write plot, Players write stories.

As DMs we DO railroad as far as plot is concerned. That is, these are the events happening around you like it or not! But when our players decide to turn left - no matter how tempting we make right look - we let them go left and continue running the game. It is just how we like to run our games.

However, those plots you ignore continue to live...and mutate. There have been many times that the PCs have rued the day they let things go unattended. But, then again, it was their choice. Over the years this has instilled a sense of due diligence in the PCs. That's a good thing if you ask me.

 

[Shade]

For me, a "novelist" DM is one who is only concerned about telling his story. He may be one who wants to limit rules greatly to prevent players from doing what they want to do, may railroad them, may limit XP advancement to keep his "story" on track, etc.

I'm not fond of the "novelist". If he wants to write a novel, he should write a novel on his own, and not drag a bunch of his friends along while limiting their input and fun.

 

[vrock]

All GM's have a story they want to tell when they run games, it's all a matter of how that story is told. Railroad the characters, dictate their actions to them, or prevent them from jumping off the rail and you are labeled as a Novelist.
Create a grand story ahead of time, but let the characters have their freedom, and have the world evolve around them because of their actions and you are labeled as a good GM.

It's a fine line between a good game, and a novelist game. Personally I prefer to be in a game that has some semblance of a plot instead of just wandering from encounter to encounter.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

'Novelist' as a negative descriptor.

In a novel, the writer holds all the power (editors excused). Wether a character hits, misses, succeeds, fails is all determined by the writer.

A novelist Dm is one who KNOWS what is going to happen & there ain't anything a PC can do about it. The villain will not die until he wnats him too, the players will never be able to accomplish something unless the DM wants them too.

On the Flip side, if he EXPECTS the PC's to succeed at something, they will, no matter how poor their rolls or stupid their actions.

Players are completly optional in a true 'Novelist's' campaign, as what they will do/not do has been pre-determined.

Semi-Trained monkeys will work just fine.

 

[Bastoche]

The definition depends on each individual.

Most RPGs state somewhere that playing a role playing game is a "story" where the protagonists can do whatever the players want them to do. On the other hand, the GM who is to provide a universe for the character faces some constraints that encourage him to use "force" (light or heavy railroading and/or "illusionism" i.e. making believe the players that they run the show) to a certain degree.

Each player has a certain tolerance to force. A Novelist is any DM who goes beyond that level of tolerance.

I'm to a point where being presented "obvious" choices is considered railroading to me. I know for a fact that some games allow the DM to prepare in such a way that no matter what the PCs do, want to do, go or whatever, it doesn't spoil the DM's preparation.

For example, suppose a DM that prepares a "plot" involving a certain theif guild in a certain city. Suppose that, for some reason, the PC decides to NOT go in that city. The DM could choose to end the session saying he wasn't prepared for this and finds a new plot to play in the other city. This isn't much fun because everytime the players don't go in the "DM's direction", the game has to stop. However, the PCs TRULY have control. Their characters really do what the players wants them to do. Option (1)

On the other hand, the DM could keep the plot and finally decide that the plot and the thief guild "just now happen" to be in that other city. That's illusionnism. The players don't have control. Whatever they do, the DM's plot is vague enough to allow him to ALWAYS place it "in the way" of the characters. For most players, that sort of railroading is acceptable and even encouraged! In that case, the player can influence the campaign by choosing the details the DM didn't fix up front. Option (2)

Railroading is when the PCs don't have a choice. So suppose that from the example above, the DM made sure the PCs got to "his" city and made sure that they met with "his" thief guild. For example, he could have them captured by the thieves. Or he could have an Elminster NPC ask them to do it else he would slay them etc. Option (3)

IMO, any DM not doing (1) is a novelist and truly have "his" story played. However, the option (2) is generally not frustrating to players. Option (3) is lethal for a gaming group except in very very rare occurence.

But like I said, some games allow the DM to prepare for (1) and really let the player do whatever they wish. Most hardcore D&D player wouldn't find such a game so appealing though.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

A novelist is someone who writes a novel. A novel is "A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters." The distinction is that in an RPG the plot is not "unfolded" by the actions of the characters. The action is unfolded by the plots of the characters.

Put differently, a DM prepares a setting into which PCs venture to make collective fun. The novelist works without input, writing from start to finish. The DM writes in advance (resembling a novel) to prepare, but then opens the result to a collective of improvisational actors.

It's like the difference between a heavily plotted TV show like ER and Who's Line is it Anyways? The second show is not scripted, but it is directed in part by the host. That's like D&D. (At least for me.)

 

[kigmatzomat]

I did the "novelist" thing once; I had the whole story arc figured out, what would happen, the speeches that would get made, etc, etc. Horrible, horrible game. Things were too rigid, too linear and too artificial. No one was satisfied with that particular game event; the only good thing was it was only a brief period in a larger campaign.

I've seen other people try to run the "perfect story" and it has bombed each time. A really good story will involve the players for some time but after a while it becomes apparent that the GM has a "vision" and isn't going to let any namby-pamby players get in the way.

I try to have an organic game now where I introduce changes to the setting but with no particular preference to the outcome. This results in loose ends and plenty of strange bedfellows. I try to run think out NPCs' actions from their viewpoint and their limited knowledge, which can get really messy when the players are keeping secrets or are bad at sharing data with allies.

The players like it and I can manage it

 

[Shemeska]

All GM's have a story they want to tell when they run games, it's all a matter of how that story is told. Railroad the characters, dictate their actions to them, or prevent them from jumping off the rail and you are labeled as a Novelist.
Create a grand story ahead of time, but let the characters have their freedom, and have the world evolve around them because of their actions and you are labeled as a good GM.

It's a fine line between a good game, and a novelist game. Personally I prefer to be in a game that has some semblance of a plot instead of just wandering from encounter to encounter.

Well said.