not functionally equivalent to handling a protagonist

[Ron Edwards]

Seth,

Nicely put. I think we are, perhaps in a kind of piecemeal way, managing to figure out what parts of the elephant we're all touching  (ewww).

Fang, I agree with you about the double negative. "Avoiding deprotagonizing" is definitely an abomination. For clarity, I think I'd dissect it out as follows:

Protagonizing (with the proviso of the diversity that Seth has identified, correctly I think)
Passively failing to protagonize, moving along a spectrum to actively deprotagonizing

Anything else can probably be placed somewhere in there, or at least that's what it looks like to me at the moment. All is still up in the air, of course ...

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

GreatWolf

Thank you, for that most astute answer. However, I think I was unclear on one point.. It wasn't that we failed, it wasn't even that I was captured, and died that upset me.. It was that, rather than dying due to my own actions (dying in combat, or being killed right off after being captured) I was held, with absolutely no knowledge of my life/death status, then simply, on DM whim, eaten. I didn't get to struggle and attempt, at least, to die a more valiant death. It was the method of the death (being eaten) and the fact that I had no input on it that I feel was deprotagonizing.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Lance,

Even with your clarification, I can *still* see Seth's point that the first situation you present is NOT particularly "deprotagonizing" from a Gamist standpoint.  You faced a fair challenge, and lost.  Your "piece" is out of the game.  HOW it's out of the game (the details of how you died) is utterly unimportant - all the significant protagonization/deprotagonization (if we want to talk about such things outside Narrativism, which it's not immediately clear to me is a good idea) is over with.  You care about *how* you died?  What a strange thought - why would that matter?

But with any sort of Narrativist focus, your first situation seems like clear deprotaginization to me (barring extensive modification, e.g. the GM knows you wanted to go out in a gruesome fashion "when the time comes" or the like).

The second situation . . . here's what came to mind in applying Paul's "validating conflicts is in the control of the player" to your description: sounds like you did not have any specific reason to believe that losing the bar would "work" as a conflict/situation for the player, but the player *was* able to "validate" the occurence by taking actions that protagonized his character.  Good players can take a wider set of possibly-deprotagonizing situations and turn 'em around, and good GMs probably instinctively present situations that can be used in this way, but without more info . . . you got lucky.  If the bar was (as it seems in your description) a big deal for the player(s?), destroying it *could* have been deprotagonizing - again, unless there's info not in your description that made it clear the player(s?) would be able to make that event work for the characters.

Just my reaction . . .

Gordon

[contracycle]

I think... the first scenario IS deprotagonising* because the death happens off camera.  From my gamist-sim default perspective, what I recognised in the GM's position was the dilemma of the value of a cool scene - a shocking revelation - delivered to one player versus a "fair" scene - the struggle in the bonds, even if futile - which would spoil the effect.

What makes the scene cool is the oportunity to highlight NPC's - few better opportunituites for establishing villain credentials than the line "we ate him".  Delivered right, it might be a very effective moment which might eve protagonise other (surviving) player characters.  It also ups the ante in terms of gamist stakes.

Am I right in suspecting that these captured characters are also hors de combat, and have been captured because they were incapacitated?  In which case the GM might be operating on the assumption that they are also unconscious and hence incapable of resisting - this is fair in gamist terms.

But I still think it is deprotagonising - the PC has become a stake in the survivors game, has been demoted from viewpoint character to spear-carrier (alas poor yorick).  While the character was captured and incapacitated, they were in limbo; the decision to make 'em dead was taken unilaterally.  There might be a number of ways to work around that without necessarily challenging the gamist/sim continuity of causality: maybe a "closure scene" reinforcing the death ion concrete terms; or the player narrating their last scene, their own demise, as they see fit, once that becomes public knowledge; or systems which allow for a character to be under the power of NPC's without simultaneously being under the full power of the GM (i.e. script immunity stands).

* if we can have defenestrate, we can have deprotagonise, IMO.  Not that I care much.

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, last comment on the specific example...

Even with your clarification, I can *still* see Seth's point that the first situation you present is NOT particularly "deprotagonizing" from a Gamist standpoint.

I suppose some of the crux is here.. I'm not a gamist. I abhor purely gamist play, which is why I can only play and enjoy D&D if done with a broader focus than pure gamism.

Am I right in suspecting that these captured characters are also hors de combat, and have been captured because they were incapacitated? In which case the GM might be operating on the assumption that they are also unconscious and hence incapable of resisting - this is fair in gamist terms.

Yes, exactly. However, the first character (not mine) was eaten in the first day.. Mine had a couple of days before she was eaten, therefore plenty of time to regain consciousness. If my character had been eaten in the first day, I would have been less disgruntled. But as a paladin, unless she was specifically kept unconscious the entire time, she would have been able to have healed herself enough to put up a fight and hopefully die valiantly.

What makes the scene cool is the oportunity to highlight NPC's - few better opportunituites for establishing villain credentials than the line "we ate him". Delivered right, it might be a very effective moment which might eve protagonise other (surviving) player characters. It also ups the ante in terms of gamist stakes.

And here is, I think the other end of the stick.. It wasn't cool. It wasn't a scene. It was an aside after the player characters failed their infiltration. It protagonized nothing nor made the antagonists any more cool. They were just stock gnolls and goblins. If the ignominious death had served some purpose game-wise, the Narrativist in me would have been satisfied. If I had gotten the chance to play the character's death, and have her react to the circumstances with all of the personality I imbued into her in the short time I played her, the Simulationist in me would have been satisfied.. There is, unfortunately perhaps, no gamist in me. If I want to play a game to win, I play board games or strategy games of some sort. I roleplay to play a role, not to play a game.

But that's it. I suppose, even if it's technically NOT deprotagonizing, *I* still feel it is by my still nebulous understanding of the term. However, I thank you all for taking the time to address my points specifically.

[Valamir]

Again I must revisit what I said earlier, even though I was roundly disagreed with, that "protagonism" as a term cannot be applied to RPGs without substantial modification.

If this were a novel, the fate of Lance's character would clearly NOT be deprotagonizing in anyway because either a) it would be obvious that his character was not the protagonist, or b) the story was meant to end tragically so this death would be the desired ultimae goal (not likely given the context, but included for completeness).

The news of Lance's grim demise *IS* a "protagonizing" event...for the character who heard the news,  for the character who spends the rest of the book agonizing over friends lost, for the character who learns the valuable lesson either about "sacrifices for the greater good", or "the futility of the endeavor" or whatever.  But it is *NOT* deprotagonizing to Lance, because Lance wasn't the protagonist (if he was he wouldn't have died).

Herein lies the crux of the difference.  In an RPG you have multiple characters played by multiple players...even without a "party" mentality they *CANNOT* all be protagonists in the literary sense.  They may share the lead role in an ensemble manner, they may all get a piece of the spot light, but they cannot all be protagonists.

IMO, for this discussion to have any real value (beyond being an interesting subject for musings) we must first either

A) Limit the scope of our discussions to those instances of roleplaying where creating a clear protagonist is the primary goal of all players.  Where the GM knows he is to protagonize a certain character and the other players know that that character isn't theres.

B) Redefine what is meant by protagonism to account for the clear and obvious differences in the medium.  


Without an author there can be no protagonist.  

There may well be features and aspects of what a protagonist is that we would like to see highlighted in our roleplaying characters (choice B above) but that is NOT the same thing as being a protagonist.

[amiel]

Valamir:

Again I must revisit what I said earlier, even though I was roundly disagreed with, that "protagonism" as a term cannot be applied to RPGs without substantial modification.

I agree.
I also have another point to make. I have seen movies, read books, and watched plays that have more than one protagonist. However, there was really only one protagonist per story.
That's right, these movies and such were composed of more than one story. However, my favorite of these had multiple stories with shared premise. To make it just a touch more confusing, these multiple stories with shared premise often had different themes.
<example>Pulp Fiction
Vincent Vega is the protagonist in the scenes with Mia. He's a supporting character in the scenes with Jules. He is a minor antagonist in the scenes with Butch. In his last scene with Butch, as a matter of fact, he is deprotagonized in as harsh a way as possible.
</example>
How does this apply to RPGs. In the most Narrative, perhaps it's time to figure out a way to deem who is a protagonist and when. Realizing that the crafting of one "story" with a group of five may not be the best bet, perhaps crafting four stories with a group of five people (including the GM) may be the way to go. Four stories, four protagonists, description of who is the protagonist at any given time.