The Forge Archives

This was kind of inspired by Fang's  thread Psychotic (or is It Schizoid) Game Design. I'm not advocating what I'm saying here, just musing out loud and making observations. I'll also say that I'm not a comic book historian; it's possible I have one or two facts wrong, but I think the core of my argument is sound.

In the early 1940s, Bob Kane, creator of Batman, introduced a sidekick, Robin, to the comic book. The purpose of Robin was to give kids who read the book somebody to identify with. Kane believed that his readers couldn't empathize with Batman, but would be able to put themselves in the place of a young boy fighting alongside the Caped Crusader. In other words, Robin was designed as a Player Character. If you're willing to accept "let's pretend" as a form of roleplaying games, when kids imagined themselves in the Batman universe, they were supposed to play Robin.

Now, while Dick Grayson was a major character in the stories, he wasn't actually essential. Sure, Robin fought the bad guys alongside Batman, and even saved him a few times, but I don't think he was ever truly necessary. Alfred or Commissioner Gordon might have been equally useful in those scenes. Picture an image that you think is the platonic ideal of a Batman and Robin story. Mine would be a panel of the Dynamic Duo fighting the Joker. Now imagine the scene without the Boy Wonder. To me, it works just as well either way.

Does Robin even fit into the Batman genre? Most of the characters in it are madmen and thugs; what's a small child doing there? A few authors have omitted him entirely or made significant changes (e.g. Tim Burton's movies, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns), and the story doesn't seem to suffer. On the other hand, he's not too disruptive. Everyone in Gotham accepts him as a fact of life, and his presence doesn't make the Joker any less dangerous.

Since Robin was designed as a PC, what are the ramifications for RPGs? Well, for one thing, it suggests that in a world based on an established work, (and this is what inspired me from that thread), PCs are designed like Robin. They can be important, but they shouldn't be the ones directing the work's story. I'm sure there's probably a term for this somewhere on The Forge -- illusionism? bad game design?

So in a Star Wars game (where I see the main stories as the rebel's battle against the empire, and the Jedi Knights vs. those on the dark side of the force) characters might play C3PO or Chewbacca, but not Luke. They could play a rebel fighter, but not Leia. They certainly can't be in a situation where they could take out Darth Vader.

It also implies that the RPG doesn't have to perfectly emulate the work; if you were writing [insert favorite novel here], it would look different than [author's name] did it. PCs don't need to conform to the exact same rules as the protagonists of the work which inspired them; they just can't disrupt it too much.

Looking back on this post, it seem that what I've said is "roleplaying games are a different medium than stories," but I think this points out one of the reasons why; PCs fulfill a different role than the protagonists.

To reiterate, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that I think it's a phenomenon out there.

Thoughts? Opinions? Counter-arguments?

Felix

Felix,

I think you'd be right in saying "that's what PCs are in a significant portion of role-playing games run." (Cripes, I don't want to point any fingers, but I do, but I shouldn't, but... cough*WoD*cough.)

I'll be blunt, though: the thought of playing Robin to some GM's Batman makes me ask, "What's the point?" I certainly couldn't do it again.

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonI'll be blunt, though: the thought of playing Robin to some GM's Batman makes me ask, "What's the point?" I certainly couldn't do it again.

To drop out of the comics paradigm (ye gods, how I dislike supers.. there, that's my bias!) does it work for you, Clinton, in the Ars Magica paradigm?  Grogs are always second-fiddle to the other characters (heck, even to other grogs).  

Is it the issue of spotlight (unsure of the Official Forge term for that concept) that bothers you?  That's my personal issue with it.. I hate watching the GM play their pet NPC.. *sigh*

-jeffrey "bitter? me?" miller-

Felix, I think you point out one of the reasons why published game settings always irk me - you can't be Luke, you can't be Superman.. you really can't effect the world, not as the setting is written.  Publishers have done a poor job of telegraphing that its ok to change their settings;  they could all do with a chapter on "here's places where you could break the world, and what ramifications might spiral out"

-j-

Jeffrey,

It's totally the idea of spotlight. I haven't played Ars Magica (I know! Horrors!), but I've played plenty of characters of lesser physical/magical/whatever's-important power compared to the other PCs and NPCs. Still, they were protagonists in their own right, and seeing them overcome their setbacks was good story material.

If I'd had to sit back and watch their protagonism get overrun by an NPC, well, I'd not have played in that game any longer.

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonFelix,

I think you'd be right in saying "that's what PCs are in a significant portion of role-playing games run." (Cripes, I don't want to point any fingers, but I do, but I shouldn't, but... cough*WoD*cough.)

I'll be blunt, though: the thought of playing Robin to some GM's Batman makes me ask, "What's the point?" I certainly couldn't do it again.

You're right that it's only for a significant portion of RPGs run; I'm not talking about every game out there, and hope it didn't look like that.

Robin may not be an ideal example of what I'm after, because he's clearly a second-rate character. But would you be willing to play Han Solo? He's cool, but he really isn't needed for the story of the struggle against the empire or the dark side of the force. Still, he can have cool struggles against Jabba and Boba Fett. That's the sort of PC players might be forced to play in a well-designed RPG that uses these principals. (I'm sure some Star Wars fans would argue he's essential to the story; I don't see it that way. If you don't agree, fill in the name of a different character you find cool but not essential.)

Felix

Han Solo is different from Robin, I think, in that while he isn't the star, he has his own story. He makes the decision to come back and help Luke at the end of ANH.

Quote from: Jeffrey MillerPublishers have done a poor job of telegraphing that its ok to change their settings;  they could all do with a chapter on "here's places where you could break the world, and what ramifications might spiral out"

-j-

Me too!

Seriously, that would be a great way to address the problem. My guess is that it's not done since there are some people buying whatever RPG that take the setting or metaplot as gospel. Keeping the PCs from messing with this is important to them. RPGs are a different medium, and the rules of what's set in stone in the world should be different.

Felix

Hi Felix,

I think you've nailed it:

Quote....PCs fulfill a different role than the protagonists.

Although this isn't the only way to play, historically this has occured for one major reason:  In traditional media, the author controls the protagonists, the conflicts, and the outcomes. In roleplaying games, those things are divided up amongst the players and GM, and the mechanics.  When we're talking about sidekicks and "typical" PCs, they are united in that their decisions "don't matter", precisely because players are typically removed from having real control over all of the above 3 elements.

Consider two typical Batman stories with Robin:

A) Batman gets put into deathtrap, Robin saves him
B) Batman gets put into deathtrap, Robin gets captured trying to save him.  Batman pulls out miracle from utility belt, saves them both.

What's the deal?  Notice that no matter what Robin does, Batman lives(and so does Robin, but that's another point).  No matter what players do in the "typical" campaign, their actions don't matter.

Why does this happen?  Well, to put it simply, somewhere along the line, a common idea developed that GMs are supposed to "tell a story", be in full control, and always be prepared for what is going to happen.  While players come to a game, not knowing what's going to happen, and totally cool with it, the GMs came to games with stacks of "If-then" notes.  "If the players do this, then this has gotta happen..."  

With this, you have two different methods going on at the game table.  The players have a flexible tool, a character, adaptable to any situation("What would Batman do?"), the GMs have giant lists of inflexible, one time use situations.   Most of the gaming advice out there, is only about either better hiding the "walls"(Illusionism) or else better forcing people to stay within them(Railroading).  Many gamers worry about giving players "too much power" which is really more options that make it harder for those "walls" to work.

A few folks have decided to abandon the If-then walls altogether.  This has its advantages and disadvantages.  On the plus side, players now fully control their characters, and can be those protagonists, like Batman, who make decisions, and alter their world.  On the bad side, you need to have some way of keeping focus and drive(making interesting things happen).

Blowing out these walls can be a choice on the parts of the group(Narrativist D&D), or can be built into the system itself(octaNe, Trollbabe, Dust Devils).

Chris

Not to be, um, predictable, but I respectfully disagree (and it is an interesting and well posed question).

But this is key:
You don't need Narrativist D&D (or narrativist games) to break those walls Chris was talking about down. The standard stuff does it just fine. This is the Impossible Thing Myth (you can PM me if you disagree).

The PC's in tradtional games are, I think, far closer to Batman--than Robin (and--it will come as little surpise to those who've followed my posts on this stuff--my WoD game defly avoided the meta-plot stuff with but the slightest flex of imaginary muscles).

Yes, I agree, you *can* get trapped in thinking RPG's are like Chris described (where the PC's have no real power and the GM is inflexibly running an event tree)--but you can also get trapped in a bad job or relationship ... or keep reading a series after the author's magic spark has gone gone out three books back ...

None of this is about the medium.

Roleplaying Games fufill a different medium than standard-media-stories because they are dynamic and cooperative.

They are dynamic in that the end is unclear to everyone involved (in the traditional model). They are necessiarily and implicitly dynamic in that unforseen events can change things in unpredictable ways.

But mostly they are dynamic because their presentation is in real time. A story, film, drama, what have you is consumed after completion. RPG's are not.

Secondly they are cooperative. In the traditional model the PC's may be acting or reacting to events in the game-world, but there is still implict and important power-sharing in the cooperation that the RPG-environment requires.

Power is not taken, it's assigned. It's assigned by the group of players to a single GM (again, this is the traditional model). This is cooperative in a way traditional media is not.

Even co-written books, edited screen-plays, or committee designed sit-com episodes don't cooperate in the way that RPG's participants do.

That's why (IMO and IME) RPG's different from what is commonly meant by "stories". (and I believe this applies, axiomatically, even to strongly Narrativist play).

-Marco

Quote from: BankueiWell, to put it simply, somewhere along the line, a common idea developed that GMs are supposed to "tell a story", be in full control, and always be prepared for what is going to happen.  While players come to a game, not knowing what's going to happen, and totally cool with it, the GMs came to games with stacks of "If-then" notes.  "If the players do this, then this has gotta happen..."  

I partly agree with this, and I partly agree with Marko.  There was indeed a point in the history of RPGs when there arose the idea that the GM is supposed to direct a story, but I don't think that idea is entirely universal.  

The original modules were location-based.  The GM would lay out a dungeon, have a key for what was in each location, and the PCs could wander around it and do whatever they wanted.  This is very player-driven, actually.  The players can do whatever they want within that location.  It was regarded as at least borderline cheating if the GM changed around dungeon details during play.  The problem, of course, is that it can get pretty dull and aimless, especially over time.

Many had the idea of breaking out of wandering from keyed room to keyed room.  They wanted to have more of a coherent story to play.  Unfortunately, the most common solution was and is to have a linear sequence of scenes/locations.  The players come to the location, and there is some sort of challenge and/or clues leading them to the next scene.  A common device is a keyed event.  For example, as the party approaches the clearing, they hear a woman's scream (this regardless of how long it took the party to get there).  

There is usually advice given to the GM to be flexible -- but if your preparation is based on a sequence of scenes, there is an overwhelming tendency to stick to it.  However, to be fair, it is a tricky skill to come up with a good, structured story purely by improvisation.  I think there is very good reason why Baron Munchausen hasn't taken over the market.  It comes to your turn and you think "Er, damn.  I can't think of anything good."  There are definitely other approaches to aimlessness-vs-linearity, but I don't think any of them are a simple slam-dunk.  

Common approaches to the problem include:

• Many games emphasize the resolution over the plot.  For example, in classic Champions the plot is brief filler between fight scenes.  It also invented player power to determine subplots and themes via disadvantages like Dependent NPC and Hunted (A very limited power, but Champions was an early game).  Torg is also action-emphasized, and gives players power using Drama Deck cards.  
  
• Some games, like Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia, bite the bullet and incorporate as central themes the idea that the PCs are doomed pawns.  The fun for the players is in characterization and atmosphere.
  
• A few games encourage more spontaneous improvisation at the expense of continuity (or at least seriousness), such as Toon and to some degree Theatrix.   [/list:u]
  
  Uncommon solutions include:
  • No-Myth-of-Reality/Genre Play.  This was touched on some by Theatrix, though incompletely -- I look forward to Scattershot's take.  The idea is to not prepare specific locations and scenes, but instead prepare the story logic you are trying for: i.e. pacing, twists, etc.  The players can go wherever they want in the world, but they are subject to the genre expectations.  
    
  • Plotless Background-based Play.  Here you are weaving a story amidst a fixed set of locations.  There is a Scope of locations of interest, and actions take place as individuals and groups interacting within the space of that Scope.  [/list:u]

I think Felix may be saying something a bit different than what he's being made out to say; it's his thread, and will stomp me if I'm totally full of it.

My read is that he's saying something like this:

In games based upon fairly clearly delineated source material, e.g. Star Wars, you can't be the main protagonists and still retain the source itself.  That is, if it's Star Wars, the party can't be Luke and Ben and Leia and Han and Chewie and the droids, because then either (1) the players know the story and are just walking through it, or (2) you don't respect the story that got everyone into it in the first place.  If, by contrast, your PCs are somebody totally different, then they can't destroy the Death Star, or turn out to be Darth Vader's son, because those roles are already taken.

I think this is true, but there are ways around it.  For example, dredge backwards (as the recent films have done, poorly).  Who is Wedge, anyway?  Construct a story whose endpoint is known, in one detail (he's alive and a good pilot), and let the players fill in everything else.  It's not the films, sure, but it's a good start.

For myself, this is why I hate playing or running in such universes.  Everything is so pre-determined.  The most fun I ever had in a Star Wars universe was when we decided that it just made more sense to stick with our jobs as Imperials and trash the local rebellion.  The only person who had a problem with this was the GM, who was horrified.

As another example, and a weirder one, take CoC.  If you play the game as written, you hunt down the baddies and eventually get eaten, or you don't.  If you don't, you continue -- because you're insane, apparently, because nobody sane would continue with this.

Okay, so I was in a one-shot of CoC where I just kept pushing and pushing and pushing.  Eventually, it turned out that I was related to the bad guys, and so in a weird genetic sense it was all my fault.  For some reason, the GM thought this would encourage me to really go after the bad guys.  But I decided to sign on, and become High Priest (as I was clearly destined to do), and in the end was rambling about how I would go diving in the middle of the night, and swimming with the Deep Ones, and listening to the whippoorwills going "tekeli-li, tekeli-li," and generally being totally insane.  Very not CoC, but very Lovecraft.  General agreement was that when I ate the other character, and went off on a tear to become the bad guy, the game became totally Lovecraft and totally not CoC.

So is CoC not emulating Lovecraft?  Damn straight.  Is CoC not a playable game?  Hell, no -- it's a great game.  So is emulating source material the essential issue always?  No, not at all.  And if the mechanics get in the way (as they don't in CoC -- just throw out your defenses and be at one with darkness), burn them.

Why is this hard?

Quote from: clehrichI think Felix may be saying something a bit different than what he's being made out to say; it's his thread, and will stomp me if I'm totally full of it.

My read is that he's saying something like this:

In games based upon fairly clearly delineated source material, e.g. Star Wars, you can't be the main protagonists and still retain the source itself.  That is, if it's Star Wars, the party can't be Luke and Ben and Leia and Han and Chewie and the droids, because then either (1) the players know the story and are just walking through it, or (2) you don't respect the story that got everyone into it in the first place.  If, by contrast, your PCs are somebody totally different, then they can't destroy the Death Star, or turn out to be Darth Vader's son, because those roles are already taken.

You're right; that's pretty much what I meant.  The only clarification I'd like to make is how the situation has often been resolved. Players are given someone who looks like he belongs in that situation, but is just along for the ride. As Clinton pointed out, WoD does this a lot; the PC vampires seem to be involved in all the political intrigue, but it's all the work of the elders and they're along for the ride. (Or that was the case last time I took a look at the game.)

I think historically this has been a big problem, predating D&D. A lot of people, when reading a novel, think "what would I or my literary creation do in this situation?" I do something like that. But it doesn't matter, because when you turn the page, the novel's characters are doing something else, and then people think "What would I do now?"  A certain type of PC (and certain sympathetic characters in those works) was created to handle this, and let the characters take part and empathise with the situation, without ulimately affecting it.

In roleplaying games,  as has been mentioned, the situation is really unsatisfactory due to the fact players do influence a story. I do like the examples you've provided of ways around it though:

Quote
For myself, this is why I hate playing or running in such universes.  Everything is so pre-determined.  The most fun I ever had in a Star Wars universe was when we decided that it just made more sense to stick with our jobs as Imperials and trash the local rebellion.  The only person who had a problem with this was the GM, who was horrified.

As another example, and a weirder one, take CoC.  If you play the game as written, you hunt down the baddies and eventually get eaten, or you don't.  If you don't, you continue -- because you're insane, apparently, because nobody sane would continue with this.

Okay, so I was in a one-shot of CoC where I just kept pushing and pushing and pushing.  Eventually, it turned out that I was related to the bad guys, and so in a weird genetic sense it was all my fault.  For some reason, the GM thought this would encourage me to really go after the bad guys.  But I decided to sign on, and become High Priest (as I was clearly destined to do), and in the end was rambling about how I would go diving in the middle of the night, and swimming with the Deep Ones, and listening to the whippoorwills going "tekeli-li, tekeli-li," and generally being totally insane.  Very not CoC, but very Lovecraft.  General agreement was that when I ate the other character, and went off on a tear to become the bad guy, the game became totally Lovecraft and totally not CoC.

So is CoC not emulating Lovecraft?  Damn straight.  Is CoC not a playable game?  Hell, no -- it's a great game.  So is emulating source material the essential issue always?  No, not at all.  And if the mechanics get in the way (as they don't in CoC -- just throw out your defenses and be at one with darkness), burn them.

Why is this hard?

I think the reaction of your Star Wars GM explains why it's hard. Doing this makes sense, but it's looked at as a form of cheating, or breaking the unwritten rules. I've heard stories of a D&D group that consisted mostly of bards and rogues. They went from town to town entertaining the villagers. When the DM tried to drop adventure ideas ("Kobolds have been raiding the farms nearby."), the players ignored it ("The villagers should really hire some mercenaries then. Can we perform in the tavern tonight, or is it booked?"). They were perfectly within the rules of the game, but it's not expected behavior in a D&D world. The player who told me about it said the DM wasn't happy. I imagine in a lot of games based on a source, there are plenty of similar situations.

I dug up a couple old threads on a similar topic
Metaplot and Story Creation (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=886)
Meta-plots, Railroading and Settings (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=972)
Open/Closed Setting(Pyron's Woe's Take 165) (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4012)
I want to draw special attention to the Open/Closed Stting thread in which Ron describes what he called "underbelly" tactic.

Marco my friend, you never cease to amaze me and kill me at the same time.

The biggest disconnect between you and I on matters like this, I think are summed up neatly in microcosm in your first post here above.

You start by saying "I disagree" and then go one to say pretty much what everybody else is already agreeing on.  You're coming from a different perspective, but you aren't disagreeing with anything.

To summarize:

Felix suggests many RPGs are like Batman and Robin where the PCs are like Robin and just along for the ride while the worlds NPCs are like Batman and the story is really about them.

Clinton says yup, many RPGs are like that, and picks on WoD as the obvious (and all too easy) target example.  And Chris gives a nice summary as to why this often is.

You then come in and essentially...to boil down what your post is saying say "Yes, I agree, that is often the way things are, but there are various techniques you can use to try an avoid having that happen"

But instead, for some reason you start out by saying "I disagree".  Nope, you're not disagreeing at all.  You're saying exactly the same thing as everyone else. Which is why its so easy for John to come in and agree with both of you.  Cause you're not saying anything contradictory.

I'm thinking its just because you've for some reason decided to not accept the possibility that you've already been playing Vanilla Narrativism for years ;-)...that's a joke............but only partially.

Hey Val,

Fortunately yer not dead yet :)

When I see a post that says something like:

"PC's fufill a different role than protagonists." I go "no they don't." Now, there's context and examples and it's all fine points right? I don't think so.

Quote
[aside]
It may be part of the bulletin-board medium. People leave out IMO, IME, and the words can or may all the time. If he'd sayd "PC's may fufill a different role than protagonists." I'd have gone yeah--they can. Sure. And if you play with a strong meta-plot and make it central to the important-action of the game that's a risk you run. When you say "Meta-plot does this." I go "no, meta-plot doesn't--you do." Dig that? WoD doesn't do that--the gamers do or don't.
[/aside]

I think a lot of folks have the belief/experience that in non-narrativist gaming the PC's aren't "protagonists" and that the PC's don't have any real effect on the game world. I think that's embedded into a good deal of the discussion here.

I might be wrong--it *might* all be the specific vaguries of context--but I don't think so (Example: in The Imp Thing posts, while Mike agrees with me that it's impossible only in a Narrativist context, he doesn't correct new posters who say "my players believe in the impossible thing" --or even agree with me that the term is unclear--when the poster clearly isn't speaking at all about Narrativist play--more or less everyone just kind of nods.)

Felix's thesis is very interesting and quite, I think, worthy of examination. "Robin was designed as a PC," he says. He's got a point--but I think it's a point that hinges on that misconception (the same engine that drives The Impossible Thing).

Let's look at another example: Lord of The Rings. Who're the PC(s)?

All of them? Well, that's an easy answer--but if we assume both Batman and Robin are both PC's then we're avoidng the thesis altogether.

If Frodo and Sam are the PC's (the ones who actually make a difference) and (in several opinions) the major vehicles through which the stories are told, then we see a case where the PC's are essentially pointed in a direction and fired like a catapult. They get captured, buffetted, betrayed by golumn, etc. They don't make any major *decisions* outside of that to keep going and carry the ring in the first place. Because they're so weak, they're highly "deprotagonized" (in the sense of disempowered) by the world (this is a literal reading of the story). Not a good model for a game.

If we assume Aragorn and company, we have the ultra-bad-asses whose sound and fury amounts to nothing (at most a holding action to buy more time and maybe take some heat off of Frodo and Sam). Hey, that might be the answer--they're the standard RPG PC's.

Except for the problem that the stories *are* told from the standpoint of the hobbits. There's just not a whole lot of question with the way the books are structured (hobbit in war goes unconscious? Cut secene to after the battle).

In short the comparison of literary structure, identification with character, and genre-emulation break down in the transform to RPGs. RPG's are complex beasts and the tools for analyzing them are still primitive (the GM power-dial is a good one--I'd like to see some models that account for shifts during play. If the GM allows a major change at one mode and disallows it (through illusionist technique at another) and then hands the PC's directoral power in the next installment, would there be a way to categorize the game as a whole?). But essentially, I think the metaphor is badly broke.

Moreover, I think there is a "standard mode" out there and it has some general rules that are stated and mostly agreed upoin in common language:

Do the PC's do make a difference in traditional play? Ask around on RPG.net: "in standard play, are the PC's generally supposed to be the ones taking the actions that make the difference in the story?" The answer, I believe, will be yes (the more complex posters may address meta-plot concerns. Narrativist gamers may say "no," but if you get a baseline and phrase the question in a general fashion, I'm pretty sure most gamers will agree that yes, their character's actions do get to make a difference in the plot.)

(if you feel the urge to argue that even though the answer is 'yes' that's not what happens in practice, then you have hit the foundation of why I post the way I do).

Check this out:

Quote
Blowing out these walls can be a choice on the parts of the group(Narrativist D&D), or can be built into the system itself(octaNe, Trollbabe, Dust Devils).

Perhaps you read: "hey, Narrativism is a way of dispensing with this along with many others." I don't. I think it's a common misconception that Narrativist play is the only way of dispensing with If-Then Walls, protagonizing players, and avoiding The Impossible Thing (or some combination of the three).

No? One test to see if that attitude was prevalent would be to look at someone who is promoting their brand of protagonized play and see if (even jokingly) another poster was to say "hey--I think you've been playing Narrativist."

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoPerhaps you read: "hey, Narrativism is a way of dispensing with this along with many others." I don't. I think it's a common misconception that Narrativist play is the only way of dispensing with If-Then Walls, protagonizing players, and avoiding The Impossible Thing (or some combination of the three).

Narrativism has a very narrow definition - you must be addressing and Ergian Premise.  In the absence of a thematic question like 'what would you do for love?' you can definately be left with something more Simmy like 'what would my character do if she was in love?'.

I don't think the belief here is that Nar is the only way to have protagonizing play (if so, I have serious objections...but I doubt that's the case).  I don't think that was even meant to be implied.  Sure, maybe Nar can be said to have the overt goal of protagonized play...but that's not the same thing as saying it's all that does.  (A square is a rombus, but a rombus isn't necessarily a square.)

However, this is all off-center from the topic - which is about those forms of play that are not protagonized.  And I don't think there is some magical GNS boundry that defines these games.

Hi Marco,

I believe that playing without those walls can be done in all GNS styles, sorry for not making this clear.  I brought up the examples I did, simply to reference playing without walls using games with and without rules to enforce that.  I'd definitely be interested in folks pointing out Sim and Gamist designs that have specific mechanics that prevent if-then walls.

I think the big issue is that we have a serious disjunct between these two things:

-The players are supposed to be in full control of their characters(minus personality mechanics, etc.), hence, protagonists
-The game can only work if it falls within those preset if-then walls

The first idea is usually expressed within many games, explicitly.  The second part cannot work with the first without either the player's consent and/or input.

Consider the concerns voiced about players ruining a game with "too much power"...Is it too much power to decide to "turn down the offer at the tavern, cause the job sounds stupid/boring/too dangerous/etc."?  See, the problem is that there isn't an acknowledgement of "loaning" power.  Players are "loaned" power and then have it taken away, without being informed.  

"You can do whatever you want, now you have to pick from 2 choices, now you don't get a choice!"

Aside from a few games, there's no explicit rules telling folks when or how this thing happens.  GMs don't say nothing, suddenly its the stick and carrot, and you don't know why.  You don't know what your options are, or if you'll get any consequences from it.  You're being punished for not following a plan you aren't told about.

This is highly dysfunctional behavior.  Think about it if it was a relationship, "I'm mad at you for something I won't tell you about, so I'll control/punish you through unrelated things".  Instead of recognizing the two ideas don't mix well, and just choosing one or the other, we have tons of ways to "better hide" what's going on.

I've played both with and without the walls, and I think both work great when the group is on the same page.  I think when it doesn't get talked about, when folks "just assume" is where massive amounts of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and just plain problems pop up.  Usually it goes to one extreme or another.  Felix's D&D story is one example of the disjunction, although the typical cases of railroading is the other usual example.

Does that clarify my stance for you?

Chris

Felix, if I'm reading you right, you're essentially saying that in games that are based on some established corpus, such as a story or a television show or a movie or other series, the players have no control over the world, and so don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

What I'm not certain is whether you're saying this is how it usually happens, or you're saying this is inevitable with this type of material. I can't say much to the former, as I don't play in a lot of that type of game created by someone else; but on the latter, I would argue that there are ways to use this material which protagonize players significantly.

I run a lot of pre-existing material in Multiverser play. I probably use a lot of different approaches to it, but I'd point out that there are two ways of bringing a player character into such a world, and both can be made to work quite well:[list=1]

• What if my character was in this world also?
• What if my character was in this world instead?[/list:o]
  When I run Sherwood Forest, for example, all the major characters are already there--Robin Hood, Little John, Friar Tuck, Will Scarlet, the Shire Reeve of Nottingham, Prince John, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, Richard the Lion-hearted--each in his place. Then I put the player character in Sherwood Forest and have him encounter the Merry Men. What he does from that is entirely in his hands. I had a guy join the Merry Men; I had another guy travel to Nottingham and get a job working for the Shire Reeve in an effort to find out the other side's position and movements. One character ignored both, built a hospital, and started caring for the poor. It's within the power of the player character to rescue King Richard, to kill Prince John, or to do whatever he wants. This is an also situation. If he wants, he can become one of the Merry Men and learn to use the bow and the quarterstaff and just be involved in the robbing from the rich and giving to the poor stuff. He can have exactly as much power as he wants.
  
  However, if I go with a movie script, or with most books and stories, I run them as instead scenarios. In The Last Starfighter, I'll probably remove Alex Rogan if I can get the player to take the hook. In Prisoner of Zenda, Rudolf Rassendil is replaced with the player character, who is now the image of the king and hooked into replacing him when things start going wrong. I've pulled Michael Corbin out of If Looks Could Kill, Fortunato out of Cask of Amontilado, even Blake out of Blake's 7, and replaced them all with player characters. It then becomes their prerogative to do what they would have done in those situations, to work out whether they've got a better solution to the problem than the people who did it in "that other world".
  
  This doesn't mean they're railroaded into doing that. Not so long ago I ran several players independently in parallel through the Kevin Costner film version of The Postman. One of them recognized the danger of the Holnist army, and struck out east toward DC, picking up a few people along the way and planning to try to rebuild America when he got there. One began a one-man guerilla campaign against the Holnists and General Bethlehem in particular, styling himself "the Ghost" and harrassing them until the men were so skittish he was able to walk into their camp, enter Bethlehem's cabin, and shoot him in his sleep unopposed, and then announce that he was taking over and rebuilding democracy. A third stood up to Bethlehem in one of the villages, and was immediately conscripted and put to work. Using such skills has he had, he began secretly running a subversive underground movement until finally he got the army to rebel against the leadership and overthrow itself from the inside. Thus when you do replacement, the question becomes, what would you do if you were in this situation?
  
  I don't think I'm unique in this. I gather that the Buffy TV RPG does something very similar (I've not seen it). One of the players gets to be the slayer, and the others get to be the slayers friends and support people (the Scooby Gang). The core of the world is in place; the concept of what the slayer is has not been altered. But the players get to decide how things are going to happen. This seems to me to be the way to take an existing product and protagonize the players within it: give them the identities of heroes within the world, and let them shape the outcomes their ways. You can still use the seeds of most of the episodes, as long as you remember that these seeds will grow into a story that is as much defined by the player choices as by the antagonists and the world.
  
  That suggests it can be done and it is being done. Sure, there are plenty of games that don't do it well at all, that are so locked into their heroes and their stories that they miss the point of play; but there are ways around it that are being used.
  
  Aside to Chris--your comment about how play runs in many games is interesting. Have you seen the thread about whether Module Play equals Participationism? (Note: in the middle of that thread, "Module Play" is renamed "Trailblazing".) I think your comments might connect to that.
  
  --M. J. Young

Thanks, Mike, that was just the distinction I was thinking about.

If I were running a Star Wars game, I would likely either set it somewhere far away so that there's room for the PCs to be as heroic and important as the heroes of the original trilogy, or replace Luke, Han, Leia, et al with the PCs. The Buffy game does take a similar strategy: one of the PCs is the Slayer, by default instead of Buffy, though it's possible and supported to have a Hellmouth elsewhere, a game set before or after Buffy present, and so on. (It's also the most successful game I know of with significant disparities in PC power level. It helps that the White Hats get distinctive cool stuff of their own, of course.) The Hellboy RPG makes provision for normal people and for highly weird unique characters who can work with the existing cast of the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense or instead of them. If memory serves, James Bond 007 had the similar setup, where you could play James or someone else in the 00 section.

In each of these cases, the goal is to capture the setting and the tone of stories taking place in it without necessarily duplicating particular published stories. But there are tropes of event, character, description and the like that fans will be looking for, and good games adapting existing material capture them.

Er?

I did mean M.J. Young, but I can't see anything from me or from earlier posters that warrants this response.

You've got no disagreement with me on the fact that the Robin character was there for young readers to identify with, respond to, and project into.  I think its a little weak to call 'him' a player character.  Role-playing games don't have any difficulty getting their players to identify with their characters (no matter how Batman, Luke, or Indie they are).  Thus I don't believe they need to use the same kind of engagement tools and tricks.

Besides, I think there are clear ways to put the players into positions like Luke Skywalker and Hans Solo.  Why, if I were going to run Star Wars.... (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=49740#49740)

Fang Langford

Moderator stuff: I deleted a message earlier in this thread by Mike Holmes that was meant to be a private message, as requested by him.

There's been a lot of interesting stuff here.  I think any concerns I had about fitting new characters into an established work have been addressed. But there's another aspect to my Robin Theory; I'm not sure at this point if I'm repeating what I said in my first post or this hypothesis has been altered by the thread.  

In many stories (whatever the medium) there are protagonists and major characters I'll call pseudo-protagonists (is there a better phrase out there?). Often the pseudo-protagonists seem like protagonists, but don't quite fit into the story. Let me start with an extreme example, A Marx Brothers movie. Most characters in the film -- the main actresses, Zeppo/the love interest, the villains -- are expected to act like normal society folks of the time. Groucho, Harpo and Chico, on the other hand, don't have to obey those rules. They can act however they want and get away with it. (Villain insults the rich Margaret Dumont, he gets slapped;  Groucho insults her, she swoons). Zeppo, I would argue, is a pseudo-protagonist; he looks like a main character, but isn't obeying the same rules that the other three brothers do.

To take a subtler example, look at Star Wars: A New Hope. For most of the characters, morality is completely black and white. Good rebels, virtuous princesses, and good Jedi knights fight an evil empire, evil storm troopers and the Dark Side. Han Solo, on the other hand, doesn't fit this mold. He's good, but not 100 percent pure. He'll shoot before it's clear his life is in danger (or did before Lucas changed it); he asks for money before helping Obi Wan and Luke.  He's also a pseudo-protagonist.

Or look at Marco's example of LOTR above. I'm going to argue that the Hobbits are the real protagonists there and Aragorn et. al. are the psuedos.

When D&D came out, it clearly said "You play the psuedos. The real protagonists of the story can't effortlessly slaughter thousands, or survive unspeakable disasters, but you can."  It led to the problem that D&D couldn't even begin to model normal people.

In many RPGs, though by no means all, they set up rules for playing a pseudo, who, by my definition, doesn't quite belong in the world they're trying to model.

Several example of games have been given that try to get around this, such as Buffy.

(I have to cut this post short, since I've got to step away from the computer for a little while. Does this seem to have a point? Do I need to elaborate?)

Felix

Hi Felix,

I'm not sure I understand how you are using the term "protagonist".  

A protagonist is a character around whom a story revolves who makes decisions that affect the story in a major way.  This is irrelevant of their moral state or of any consequences that may befall them.  The investigator from Ninth Gate and Bugs Bunny are both equally protagonists.

Using your example, Han Solo is definitely a protagonist, because he chooses to come back at the end of movie to save Luke at the last minute.  He made a meaningful choice, regardless of the motives behind it.

Let me know if I'm off here, but I think you're confusing the idea of protagonist with the idea of "the good guy".  If I'm mistaken, please let me know.

If you mean by "playing a pseudo", a character who is outside of the norm, then I agree that most games do provide for that.  That generally is the nature of heroes, but doesn't take away from their protagonism in any fashion.

Chris

Hello,

Marco wrote,

QuoteI think it's a common misconception that Narrativist play is the only way of dispensing with If-Then Walls, protagonizing players, and avoiding The Impossible Thing (or some combination of the three).

My essay explicitly states the converse - that Narrativist play is only one of many successful means to generate successful "story" play. I'd cite Paul Elliott's original description of Illusionist play (re-assembling "what's going on" after each session of play) as the top contender.

Best,
Ron

I don't mean that the pseudos are outside the norm; they're outside the rules of the story itself, although if well done it's hard to realize it.  In Star Wars, everyone you meet is obviously good or obviously evil, and almost all actions are immediately identifiable as the right thing or the wrong thing; the fact Han sometimes has motives beyond doing what's right puts him apart from the rest of the world. Zeppo Marx may be a main character, but you don't laugh when he's on the screen. Robin looks like the typical Batman hero or villain, but he doesn't quite fit in; he doesn't use his own theme (no robinrangs, no robin cycles; he decided to become a masked guy only after discovering Batman's secrets, not of his own volition like the other major characters).

Can these people be protagonists in the sense that they're a major focus of the story? Yes. However, they don't quite fit into the framework of the story to begin with. As I said, it's often subtle. I might be imagining it in the case of Han Solo while trying too hard to make this point.

In a lot of RPGs, player characters are in that situation. Whoever made the world they're in -- George Lucas, the GM, a published setting -- has made characters that are designed for that world. PCs can seem to fit in, but ultimately they don't. I'm not talking about the way they can interact with the world and change the fate of it. I'm talking about the fact that they were created as a tool for players to interact with the world, not necessarily to fit in.

Example: Marco's LOTR example above. The focus of the story should be on Sam and Frodo, who I'm calling the protagonists. But in most systems, such as D&D, the character creation rules are designed to create the butt-kickers, "pseudos" who played a big role, but weren't the focus of the story theme-wise, and seem to follow different rules than the others.

I'm not sure I'm expressing my point or not. Is this clearer?

Felix

Hello all,

Interesting questions, Felix. Thanks for sharing your insight!

Quote from: Bankuei"You can do whatever you want, now you have to pick from 2 choices, now you don't get a choice!"

It's the "choose your own adventure" principle.  Yes, technically you get a choice, but it's the minimum.  The recent threads about No Myth and Plotless-Background Based are examples of the other end of the spectrum from the woo-woo! railroading, minimum choice gaming that is commonly deplored.  

Part of what it comes down to is responsiveness on the part of the gm (if you have just one) and flexibility about what is accepted as part of the game.  Marco, your CoC campaign sounded fabulous! Ah, there's an issue there---I read your post and thought, what a great take on that situation, how fun it must have been to go deeply into madness and the dark side.  It's like what folks get out of play kill puppies for satan.  Letting your shadow have some time to play.  But, I can also imagine how the gm must have felt--it might have violated all her ideas about what her campaign had been intended to be about/contain, and even gone against her conception of the universe.  You broke her baseline, with your vision of what could be :)

Quote from: FelixCan these people be protagonists in the sense that they're a major focus of the story? Yes. However, they don't quite fit into the framework of the story to begin with. As I said, it's often subtle.... I'm not talking about the way they can interact with the world and change the fate of it. I'm talking about the fact that they were created as a tool for players to interact with the world, not necessarily to fit in.

Felix: when I saw the topic of the thread, I thought you would be getting at something more like this: that the pc's are a tool for interaction in the world.  My view showing.  I think something we're talking about here is not just looking at the character as something that let's you make changes in the world, but also have say in determining narrative--they are a  narrative tool when it comes down to it, regardless of whether you are building "the big plot" with their actions, or if you're just running around smiting folks.  

I'm curious about what you mean by "not necessarily to fit in". There are many ways this is probably true:  the pc's have something other character's may not: a single persona behind them, giving them motivation and motion; the pc's traditionally are part of an adventuring party who, like the hero in the western or Bill Bixby in the Hulk, are wandering through the lives of those they meet (or kill, you pick it) and aren't going to put down roots.  Ars Magica starts from an alternate take: you start by putting down roots.  There's also the matter of game worlds often being owned by the gm, and the players just coming in and playing, but not being really vested in the world or its continuity etc.  

What did you have in mind?

Regards,
Emily Care

I'm not sure I'm expressing this right, but here goes: roleplaying is about exploration. I know that means more than wandering around (exploration of setting). Most people in most world's aren't interested in exploring, in any form. They may do things, they may go through great emotional trials, but it's because they have to, not because they have any desire to explore. A D&D peasant can get abducted by kobolds, but they don't want to. They might have an affair with a neighbor, but it's not because they want to explore the emotional ramifications and charges of infidelity that will result.

Somehow, an RPG has to give a character incentives to explore.

So how do you make a character who is interested in exploring? One of the easiest ways is to make them an outsider, somehow. Robin was supposed to make it easier for kids to explore Gotham. To him, this was an adventure. To Batman, it was just a job that had to be done. Robin was supposed to give it a sense of wonder the eight-year-old comic book reader could appreciate, so they could follow the fight against evil and the dark, angular tones of the city. One of the constant themes of Buffy is that the slayer is an outsider; her job is to take care of things the average person shouldn't know exist. In Sorcerer the PC has powers known only to a handful of others, and must keep them a secret.

Other possible ways to encourage exploration exist. But forcing the PC to be different from the world, making it impossible for them to lead a standard, everyday life, is a simple, and commonly employed, way.

Felix

Interesting discussion, but I can't disagree with the premise of the orriginal post more.

When you're a kid and you watch the Star wars films, who do you imagine yourself as? The fact that the most popular toy linked to the game is the plastic lightsabre, ought to be a good clue. Yes Han and Chewbacca are great characters and many of us can identify with them but, secretly, who doesn't want to be a Jedi, or Sith, or at leats have the choice of which road to take?

Likewise with Batman, who seriously wants to be the sidekick? Not me, and not any players I know. That's why the best route in a game like Star Wars is to set your game before or after the main action, or far enough away from it that the story is about your characters, and the people they're fighting, the people they're saving and the places they visit. For my campaigns in such a universe, the battles between Luke and Darth would be just background colour.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: FelixSomehow, an RPG has to give a character incentives to explore.

So how do you make a character who is interested in exploring? One of the easiest ways is to make them an outsider, somehow. Robin was supposed to make it easier for kids to explore Gotham.  

Hmm.  It's funny, I've tended to do the exact opposite in my games.  i.e. I often try to make the PCs insiders, and reduce the scope of their interactions.  I prefer to make play more centered on a fixed set of locations rather than wandering about.  This is very clear in my current campaign, where maybe half the episodes take place within a few miles of the PCs' family homes.  

Now, obviously there is exploration -- but I would say it is more exploration of character and situation.  It is interesting.  I don't consider a reason to explore much of a problem, but then I have observed differences over this with myself as a player.  Several of my PCs have been criticized as not being sufficiently adventurous.  I think it is simply that I enjoy more low-key interactions than some.

I'm with you, John. A well defined box of exploration is often way more powerful a tool than a wide open smorgasboard of really big ideas to investigate.


Mike

Okay I'll dessent then.

Star Wars is not an invalid universe because one story in it is defined. That would be like saying that because you played a game with one character and saved the world, you can never play it again.

Now I am exactly the kind of person that would never play Luke, or take his place in the story. But when you have a huge universe where multiple conflicts rage and there are more than one bad guy to fry, you don't have to tell the same story.

For example I GMed a campaign that took the players from investigating a Imperial base to thwarting a plot to enslave a planet and cover it up, to ramming a star destroyer into the main Imperial complex. The story took many many sessions to play, and the players were very proud of themselves because they did most of it by their wits.

Now saying that story is invalid because it plays second fiddle to the end of the Empire is like saying that my life is invalid because I'm not the president of the United States.

Players don't need to change the universe to have a rewarding story.

To go to the Robin (root cause of this thread) relationship. Theres no reason to play an ineffectual character in a story. You might as well read a good book. However, Robin eventually becomes Nightwing and has his own adventures. The Robin stage can be the back story, but doesn't make for a PC. I guess I completely reject the idea that Robin is the PC.

Robin is not the PC, he is a voyer for children. A camera to "see" into a world that is difficult to access for the young. PCs are voyers too, but a square is a rectangle and a rectangle is not always a square. Robin is a rectangle and not a square. A PC is a square and a rectangle. They are therefore simmiler but not the same. (Sorry I got a little silly with that one.)

This is the anti-post it disagrees with everything and anything. (Sorry the writer of this post has been sacked.)

Quote from: EmmettPlayers don't need to change the universe to have a rewarding story.

Now, I'm not arguing with this, but when trying to play an RPG based on something like Star Wars, it can be potentially unsatisfying. Star Wars is a story of the struggle against the evil empire and such. This story was already told in the movies. Alternatives to this story in this same world do not follow the spirit. Actually, I'll repost a link (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4012) I had posted above. I wish to point out Ron's post in this thread again, which covers this ground rather well.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrAlternatives to this story in this same world do not follow the spirit.

Yeah, this bollixes it for me. But I suspect this is just a preference that will differ for each.

Mike

Quote
Protagonist, n
  1. The chief personage in a drama; hence, the principal character in the plot of a story, etc. Also pl., the leading characters in a play, story, contest, etc

Courtesy the OED.

I think it's important to seperate the protagonist from those who make decisions that affect the story. Most PC's are protagonists by defalut, as the story is told from their POV.

In established worlds the Protagonists really have very few choices, they just react. Yeah Frodo could have just given the ring to the Nine or used it himself, but everyone knows that would be a BAD IDEAtm. Batman could ignore the bad guys, but that would be kinda out of charachter for him.  

The problem is that once a story is started, conflic usually builds to the point were there are few real choices anymore.  I think the important thing is to give players the ability to 'choose their poison' so to speak, i.e. to choose what events drive them toward a conclusion.  
Narrativism does this pretty easily, like Kickers in Sorcerer.  It works pretty well in Gamism also, (the players choose something to compete against, usually be attacking it).  In Illusionism the players just have to wait for the GM to build a part of the world in front of them, so it's basicly the same as the event being handed to them.

Hello damion,

I really don't see how you manage to construct a non-decisive role or interpretation for protagonists based on the definition you quoted. The key words seem to be "chief" or "leading," and yet you seem to read that as meaning "told from their point of view." I don't see that connection.

Or perhaps your discussion of the POV is in addition to the dictionary definition, in which case it stands naked, carrying no special weight as an argument.

More to the point, regarding the definition itself and the major point you apparently draw from it, I cannot imagine any use of "chief" or "leading" regarding a character that does not include them making key decisions within or upon the plot of a story.

And further, I don't understand the distinction you seem to make between "to decide" and "to react." In story terms, they are synonymous.

Best,
Ron

A good example is Moby Dick in which the Narrator, Ishmael, is not the primary protagonist. Ahab is the protagonist.

Mike

Hi Mike,

I'm not sure whether your post stands in support of my point or damion's - or rather, I perceive its content to support my point, but am not sure which you meant to support.

Best,
Ron

I meant to support your point. It's not always the character who's POV the story is told through that is the primary protagonist. Another good example is To Kill A Mockingbird.

To be sure, the POV characters are protagonists in both. But they aren't the central protagonists by any stretch.

Mike

Quote from: Ron Edwards

And further, I don't understand the distinction you seem to make between "to decide" and "to react." In story terms, they are synonymous.

/quote]
I think I was just wrong about the protagonist thing, so ignore that. Sorry about that.

Not sure what you mean by 'story terms'.  What I was trying to say is that many storys have the protagonists simply reacting to plot elements, i.e. from the characthers point of view, they have choices, but all but one are unpalatable.  (This structure is common in myths, and 'action' type stories. I admit that some stories don't follow this pattern.)  I was wondering if this could be a partial reason for Felix's complaint, i.e. the apparent impotence of PC's comes from the material being emulated, rather than the how the characthers relate to the world.

QuoteStar Wars is a story of the struggle against the evil empire and such. This story was already told in the movies. Alternatives to this story in this same world do not follow the spirit.

Spirit? I'm trying to figure out what that would mean. Usually that would be the mood along with the point that the story is trying to convey. I would define that as a desperate hope that flurishes. I can stick to that without retelling the story.

There are a number of other stories that are evident are going on in the back ground such as smuggling, bounty hunters, crime rings. A good number of my campaigns in Star Wars was along this vein.

Although I like a great many other games, the fact that the movies define the universe in great detail makes imagining other stories in that universe much easier to me. I wish that every RPG could have a movie about one story in it so that the story was better defined. Do I want to play an RPG based on every movie? No.

I hear you Emmett. Did you read the link, BTW. The point I'm making is part of the draw of "let's play Star Wars" is the story of the movie. But that story is already done. The option is to do something on the side, which can be disatisfying to some, mess directly with the main story, also potentially disatisfying, or setting the game before or after the movie story is already done. "It's a WWII game after the Axis has already been defeated"

Now, it is possible to make very satisfying stories with any of the above. No one is denying that. The question is whether it is satisfying compared to the expectation set up by "let's play Star Wars" The answer is a YMMV issue. Some don't mind but others do. That's about it.

Quote from: Emmett

QuoteStar Wars is a story of the struggle against the evil empire and such. This story was already told in the movies. Alternatives to this story in this same world do not follow the spirit.

Spirit? I'm trying to figure out what that would mean. Usually that would be the mood along with the point that the story is trying to convey. I would define that as a desperate hope that flourishes. I can stick to that without retelling the story.

Want to play Star Wars 'in spirit?'  Try this approach. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=49740)

Not that I want to disrupt the thread, maybe we can put the 'Star Wars example' to bed and continue?

Fang Langford

Agreed.