The difference between novels and RPGs

[MerricB]

This occurred to me on another thread:

Novels are often about a world-changing event. RPGs are often about preventing a world-changing event. Discuss.

The idea is that in a novel, it is often about something really significant. This is often the case also in RPGs. However, if you want to continue after the event, a world-changing one presents a lot of problems for a RPG, so if you do one, it normally ends the campaign.

Cheers!

 

[Mark Hope]

I was thinking about this on another thread also (the one about Eberron characters wanting to be major players in the game world).

I know exactly what you mean - many games are based around the idea of preventing Dreadful Consequences from coming to pass. In many cases, the implication is that there is a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Plenty of fun games can be had with this model.

However, I am firmly of the belief that even better games can be had by shaking up the game-world, by changing major elements of the campaign and by continuing to play in the evolving setting.

I used to be of the opinion that major changes to the game-world might very well (as you mentioned) end the campaign, or at least cause me a major headache as a DM. Often, this reluctance to embrace large-scale change arose out of a desire to preserve some cherished aspect of the setting.

However, in one game, many, many years ago, events got quite out of hand and rapidly escalated beyond my control as DM. I could have wrenched things back on track one way or the other, but it was one of those situations where it would have been painfully obvious to all concerned that I was railroading things for no good reason other than to maintain the status quo and preserve the predetermined flow of the adventure.

So I sat back and let things take their course. The campaign changed utterly (and I mean "flights of dragons come screaming out of the wilderness and lay waste to civilisation"-type utterly). The players loved it. I loved it. It changed the way I look at gaming, DMing and campaigns as a whole forever.

Now, when I am faced with the idea of something occuring that might change the gameworld completely, I roll with it. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. But the game will survive, evolve and be more dynamic and exciting because of it. Which, after all, is why I play.

 

[buzz]

However, I am firmly of the belief that even better games can be had by shaking up the game-world, by changing major elements of the campaign and by continuing to play in the evolving setting.

I agree. To have a really successful, long-term campaign, change is mandatory.

Granted, the premise of most RPGs is typically defending stability, likely becasue implementing change, unless said change is designed to be a long-term effort, ends the game's "core story" as soon as the PCs accomplish it.

While I generaly hate to invoke Star Wars, the original films are about enacting change, i.e., rebelling against the Empire. There are plenty of RPG adventures to be had in such a situation. More than a few RPGs have had setups like this.

 

[jdrakeh]

Eh. I'm pretty sure the real difference is that novels relate a story that has already been written, where as RPGs facilitate the collaborative creation of such a story. That is, novels tell stories and RPGs make them

[Edit: In this respect, I don's see setting altering story climaxes as a troublesome thing and have, in fact, played through dozens of them that didn't end a campaign. I think the problems in this regard arise from people who want to use an RPG to tell a story, like a novel, as opposed to create a story - which is what RPGs are really designed for.]

 

[Mark Hope]

Granted, the premise of most RPGs is typically defending stability, likely becasue implementing change, unless said change is designed to be a long-term effort, ends the game's "core story" as soon as the PCs accomplish it.

True. I would say, however, that a good away to avoid any problems that this might cause is to ensure that the game's core story can change along with the setting. A long-running campaign of mine, for example, had a core story that essentially developed into "give the world a good death, so that it might be reborn". Change was at the very heart of the story.

I think the problems in this regard arise from people who want to use an RPG to tell a story, like a novel, as opposed to create a story - which is what RPGs are really designed for.]

I completely agree. The best games I have played in or run are those where the ending was unknown to all involved, until it actually came about through play.

 

[trancejeremy]

Personally though, I prefer novels that aren't about world shaking events. Particularly fantasy novels. Some of my favorite fantasy novels are the Ethshar series, most of which just consists of the main characters wandering around.

 

[Mark Hope]

Personally though, I prefer novels that aren't about world shaking events. Particularly fantasy novels. Some of my favorite fantasy novels are the Ethshar series, most of which just consists of the main characters wandering around.

Sounds like a lot of my Dark Sun games ("What's over here?" "Sand." "OK. And past that?" "....More sand....")

Change need not be world shaking, though. I once played in an amazing game where the central plot revolved around a fishing competition. It was made all the more gripping by the fact that the opposing team cheated us out of our justly-deserved victory by casting reduce on our winning catch. Filthy swines. Still, the second prize was an all-expenses paid holiday to a local resort island, so I guess we did OK in the end.

 

[jdrakeh]

The best games I have played in or run are those where the ending was unknown to all involved, until it actually came about through play.

Same here. I love 'troupe style' gaming in this vein. The GM sets up a world, drops a couple of plot hooks down, and then just turns the characters loose instead of having some grand vision in mind ahead of time that must be satisfied. It's that kind of grand vision (i.e., pre-scripted story) that I find often spoils campaigns, as opposed to any kind of world-changing events in and of themselves.

If the GM is busy chasing after his grand vision, changing the setting despite character actions rather than because of them, then sure - I can see where setting changes might diffuse a campaign. That said, this comes back to the difference between telling stories and creating them - trying to hang this kind of GM shortcoming on 'events' is a cop out. After all, who is in sole control of those events?

 

[loki44]

Novels are often about a world-changing event. RPGs are often about preventing a world-changing event.

MerricB, normally I get where you're coming from but not so in this instance. None of the last three novels I've read deal with a world-changing event ("English Passengers", Matthew Kneale; "The Kite Runner", Khaled Hosseini; and "I Get On The Bus", Reginald McKnight). In fact, they were all rather introspective, especially the latter two. Of course, none were fantasy/SciFi. I would have to say that this holds true for most novels I've read over my lifetime. However, in general I agree with the assertion that RPG's are often about preventing a world-changing event......but so was LoTR (if you want to call that a "novel") et.al. in the fantasy/sci-fi genre. Having said that, even assuming that your premise is valid, I don't think the two are incompatible (i.e. world-changing event vs. trying to prevent such). Warhammer's "The Enemy Within" campaign pops to mind in that, like a "novel", world-changing events are almost inevitable at some point or another along the way, yet that near inevitability does not preclude PC's from trying to stop it, nor does it prevent them from doing so if they play their cards right. It also does not preclude PC's from continuing, assuming they survive the "world-changing event", even if said event does occur and they are presented with an entirely new set of circumstances as a result.

 

[MerricB]

Oh, I'm definitely overgeneralising with this one. It also should be "A difference" and not "The difference".

One may also guess at my tastes in fantasy literature.

I've been thinking about it a bit more, and I'm once again drawn to the example of Dragonlance.

The original Dragonlance novels and adventures depict a world in transition. The gods are coming back. The dragons are coming back. The old order is being swept away.

Finally, the series ends and the world is changed. However, this presents a problem for the gamer, as they're no longer sure about the world. What they've read is based on the *old* world, not the new world.

Hmm.

There's a very interesting comparison with Eberron. Eberron's world order has dramatically changed due to the Last War. However, that was two years of game time ago. Sure, there's a new world order that we're introduced to - but we don't have the experiences in the old world. So, we don't have to discard old conceptions.

One should be able to see that what I'm talking about is primarily applicable to published RPG settings. As the DM has a greater conception of their own setting - and probably hasn't detailed it in the manner of the Realms - changes aren't as frightening.

Cheers!