Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games - Jennifer Grouling Cover [89]
Mackay (2001) notes that the game system “establishes the setting, tone, and direction of each narrative” yet the DM steers that narrative (p. 47). The particular narratives that come out of using a module or campaign setting may be unanticipated by the writer of that text. Yet, these materials are designed to be taken in different directions and to be used as tools, so the DM ultimately performs the function that is expected by the game designer, who creates the rule books and modules not as stories themselves but as manuals to guide the DM and players in creating a story. It is only when we try to compare this relationship to more traditional texts, such as novels or even television shows, that the author–reader dynamic truly seems disrupted.
Both game designers and DMs can function as primary authors. Monte Cook explains the odd relationship between being a game designer and being a gamemaster or DM:
The biggest difference between a game designer and a gamemaster is that the gamemaster knows the players, knows the way their characters are and can react to those kind of things. It’s kind of weird writing an adventure for publication. It’s like you’re creating a story, but you don’t know who the characters are [M. Cook, personal communication, June 30, 2009].
Using the tool set of modules and rule books, the DM creates something new—authors a new world with new stories and characters, and in doing so they must respond to the needs of their specific players. The players could then be seen as the readers. Mackay (2001) says that this is the most common relationship between the DM and players, but that shifting between frames can cause a break between reader and author (p. 134). In terms of my model from chapter 5, we can see that the DM may surrender authorial control when a shift occurs from narrative speech to narrative planning speech where he will let the players interact with each other to determine a course of action. However, when we shift back to the narrative frame, the DM is again in control. As Mackay (2001) notes, the players may control actions, but the DM controls the results of those actions (p. 94). Fine (1983) also explains that the DM can re-roll dice or otherwise alter events, thus preserving the notion of him as author over the text created in the gaming session (p. 113). The players have agency, even tertiary authorship, but the DM maintains primary or secondary authorship in these cases. The players, as readers, break the standard author–reader relationship by taking the narrative in a direction not anticipated by the DM. Yet, like the game designers, an experienced DM is one that thinks on his or her feet and is not surprised by players going somewhere or doing something unexpected. Once again we find that rather than rebellious readers taking a text somewhere it was not intended to go, the players fulfill what is their expected role within the genre of the TRPG.
A better analogy for the DM–player relationship might be that of a director and actors. A director may come prepared with a script, but the actor may add some dialog of his or her own or portray the character in an unexpected way. Another way to see this relationship would be to see the group—both players and DMs—as collaborative authors with the DM having editorial control over the final text. All authors contribute to the text, but the editor decides the final shape of that text. Yet, none of these metaphors are a perfect fit for the DM–player dynamic. While directors and actors and editors and writers work together for a coherent text, DMs and players may hide things from each