Protagonism = Ability to Phrase Premise

[W. Don]

Hi, all.

Protagonism in Narrativist games is the ability of a player to both (1) phrase the Egri premise to himself; and then (2) answer that Premise.

I don't think this is anything new around here. So I'm really just checking my own grasp of GNS in this thread. Is the statement above a correct way to put it?

Prior to recently, I've always thought of Narrativist protagonism simply as the power to address premise. Recent experience has made me think that protagonism isn't just the ability to answer the question (ie: the premise). It's also the ability to ask that question of yourself in the first place.

For example, in Paladin (which I'm currently running), the Light/Dark descriptors mechanic seems to be an example of this. The player is given the ability to "frame" the question "What is evil?" and his character's struggle with morality in the way he wants. Same with demon creation in Sorcerer and the Confessional mechanic in Inspectres.

Or am I reading too much into Narrativist protagonism?

- W.

[clehrich]

My sense is that there's just a couple caveats:

1. [phrase the Egri premise to himself] So long as it doesn't have to be conscious, that's fine.  You can play Narrativist and never know it.

2. [answer that Premise] So long as it doesn't have to remain consistent, again, that's fine.  You can address a Premise one way at one moment, then another way at another.  Regardless, you're addressing Premise, and that's Narrativism's primary base.

So basically, yes, but I don't think it has to be conscious or consistent.

Of course, if Ron and the other GNS gurus want to jump in here, I may have my head up my butt, which would be interesting (and dark).

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Chris, you and your chiropractor can rest easy - Upbuttness Syndrome doesn't seem to be indicated, at least from this consultant's standpoint.

W, I think you're in the right ballpark. It seems clear to me that one of the features of a game-design which potentially facilitates Narrativism is the big "And what do you think (or feel) about that?" directed toward the character.

It's a very important stopping-point for whoever is posing the adversity, because if he or she goes one li'l step farther - which is to say, expecting a particular answer to that question, and planning for it - then the player's Narrativist "rights" are in danger. Instead, it's that very point in which System needs to kick in, in whatever way it kicks in for that particular game. (To get a little weird about it, the same is true if the person posing the adversity is actually that player.)

By "System," I do not necessarily mean "roll dice to see what my character does." I mean anything that establishes events into the imaginary space, through the character's actions, however it may be conducted in terms of techniques.

Feng Shui, by contrast, fairly explicitly disallows stopping at that particular point - if your Melodramatic Hook is activated, you go forth and do whatever it takes to de-activate it, and the activator (usually the GM) is fully in his or her rights to expect that.

So yes, not only is answering the Premise a big deal, but setting up the angle by which it's addressed as well. Again, as I mentioned a couple of times in the essay and also included in the table, different games handle this "setup" differently.

Best,
Ron

[W. Don]

So basically, yes, but I don't think it has to be conscious or consistent.

Ah. A player seeking to establish the angle by which Premise may be addressed (and then proceeding to answer the Premise), isn't required to be consciously aware of the Premise itself. Furthere, since Premise is built strongly into a Narrativist System, "hardwired" if you will, the player (who follows the rules) can do nothing but frame it, and then answer it during play.

I can see, for example, how some players in a Paladin game might be  wholly unconscious of the Premise "What is evil?" and yet their choices of Dark/Light descriptors are attempts (often exemplary ones) at framing the Premise so that it can be addressed by their characters in the course of play. Since the "What is evil?" Premise is hardwired into Paladin, it's impossible to miss it (unless the rules are abandoned; in which case it's a different game entirely).

I grasp the unconscious protagonism part. I've heared it alluded to in the fora in the past; it's only now I'm really seeing it firsthand on the gaming table.

I grasp  the the whole "not requiring consistency" part as well. It's frame the Premise... STOP... then answer the premise. The key thing about Narrativist protagonism is the "stop", the question mark at the end. Which then necessarily implies it could go either way after that (or one of many different ways depending on how System handles it).

It's a very important stopping-point for whoever is posing the adversity, because if he or she goes one li'l step farther - which is to say, expecting a particular answer to that question, and planning for it - then the player's Narrativist "rights" are in danger. Instead, it's that very point in which System needs to kick in, in whatever way it kicks in for that particular game. (To get a little weird about it, the same is true if the person posing the adversity is actually that player.)

That is kinda weird. Is this like saying, "The player must be empowered by the System to perform the 'stop'"?  That is, there must be a real choice at key points in the game. The idea of the System (and the GM, or the player -- whoever's posing the adversity) "stopping" to preserve the player's Narrativist "rights" makes a whole lotta sense to me right now.

Feng Shui, by contrast, fairly explicitly disallows stopping at that particular point - if your Melodramatic Hook is activated, you go forth and do whatever it takes to de-activate it, and the activator (usually the GM) is fully in his or her rights to expect that.

I can imagine how this would play. However, since I don't have Feng Shui, I'm looking to other examples of non-Narrativist systems. Bear with me for a moment while I wrestle with it:

" White Wolf's Nature and Demeanor mechanics, while they strike me as potent places to get an angle on possible Nar conflicts, fail to provide the needed "stop". The player is expected by the System via "XP" rewards and penalties to follow through with a Simulationist agenda. Prompted by the system (and the GM, by extension) the players continue exploring their character by playing according to personality type (a Sim goal) -- There is no Narrativist stop. There is only frame (ie: get the angle) and go play it. "

Wow. I think I've got it. It's extremely helpful (and satisfying) to be able to say these things to oneself.

Thanks, guys.

- W.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi WD,

I'm doing the happy dance now. You've nailed it.

Best,
Ron