I think it's possible to be a plotting panster. I don't start an idea until I know how it starts and where, roughly, the ending is going to be even if I have no idea how to get from here to there. I have a general outline of how the battles are going to go, thinking about 5000 words ahead, and every day I know what today's writing is going to produce.

My books go by the always be escalating. The initial problem that the character has to solve is part of the what I need to know in order to pick a start, but then each time the character tries to fix the problem, it introduces new complications. At any point, if what comes up in the day's writings or, even better, in that two a.m. jolt of plot, the ending is scrapped and I go with what the jolt shows me.

There's a point about half way through were the worst possible thing happens, and that's the last of the new issues that are being introduced. That's the end of the beginning, and it heralds the beginning of the end. What's on the table is what the characters have to deal with between the beginning and the end of the end. Like a debate, no new information can be introduced at the end.

There's always a feeling in the first half of "how is this going to stretch out into a novel" and a feeling in the second half of "how is this all going to come in under 100k?" but it always does. I've been writing paranormal books for so long that I can write a 50k book in a month without relying on formulas or preconceived plotlines. Huh, autocorrect always tries to change plotlines to plotlessness, like it knows.

It's not something that you can do for your first dozen books. You really have to be as good at middling and ending a book as you are beginning a book, and that means middling and ending about as many books as you start. Middles are the worst part of the books; if the characters are dealing with the same issue in chapter 4 as they are 24 without the plot escalating, it's a throw the book against the wall moment.

I always think of the AIs given designed with a high enough intelligence in battle of helms deep in The Two Towers. The smart characters, when they took one look at what was facing them in the battle, turned tail and ran away. If your main character ever saw the entire iceberg they're facing at the beginning of the book and thought, sure, I could melt that aren't the kind of characters I'd like to follow. All the character should see at the beginning of the book is the tip of the iceberg.

As the author, you don't even have to know what exactly is under the waterline. You don't have to know who is the antagonist what they want, and who is in the world that can help your main character. All you need to know is what the tip of the problem is, and set your character with the tax of trying to fix the small issue. It will balloon, he will feel more and more obligated to be involved, but everything else will come and you will fix it in the rewrite as though the characters, world and problem that exists in chapter 20 will also be the character and the world that opens the book. No matter how the first draft comes about, not rewriting it kneecaps your books chances. It might still be possible to be successful without the rewrite, but it's harder where it doesn't have to be.