Holy 'That's what PCs are' Batman

[John Kim]

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.  

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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

[Emmett]

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.)

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Players 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 I had posted above. I wish to point out Ron's post in this thread again, which covers this ground rather well.

[Mike Holmes]

Alternatives 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

[damion]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Mike Holmes]

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

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Mike Holmes]

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

[damion]

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.

[Emmett]

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.

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.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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.

[Le Joueur]

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.

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.

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

Fang Langford

[Emmett]

Agreed.