Protagonization, and what happens when it doesn't happen

[Maurice Forrester]

Jack, I'm curious about your comment that the GM doesn't get it.  Do you know how the other players feel about the game?  Do they agree with your assessment or is the game working for them?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Do you know how the other players feel about the game?  Do they agree with your assessment or is the game working for them?

I honestly cannot speak for the rest of the group. I think they are so deep in synecdoche ("This *is* roleplaying, not rollplaying"), without a vocabulary to discuss the aethetics of the game in play, and completely disinterested in discussing it, really. The will complain about this or that "I don't like the lethality of the system" but otherwise they seem content to accept their lot, possibly because they do not know that their lot could improve or they really don't care because they mostly just use the game as an excuse to socialize.

Interesting side note: this includes my wife, who continues to drag me to the game just to hang out (if I don't have to work) so she'll have company on the lengthy drive. I lump her in with the rest, really. She shows disinterest whenever I try to discuss GNS or whatever with her. However last time I was there I brought the GNS essay and for the first time I finally got it. Go figure that one.

[Maurice Forrester]

Interesting.  This seems to touch on a couple of issues that have been discussed here.  It sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, the group is mostly of the "bad gaming is better than no gaming" school.  I was thinking about that issue this morning as I was pondering Sean's comments earlier in this thread about the advantages of playing with strangers.  There's a big bonus in that it can force you to break out of your comfort level, but there's also the risk of getting some really bad gaming.  I suppose we have to accept that in looking for good gaming we're likely to have some bad gaming experiences (who hasn't?), and we have to be willing to walk away from the bad gaming without looking back.  But the situation is complicated when gaming with a significant other.  There was a discussion awhile back about SOs who game or don't, and someone asked if there are reasons not to game with a SO.  I guess there's one reason right here: the partners may want different things out of a game.

I guess I don't have any useful suggestions, though....

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Well, I really don't know if they're "bad gaming is better than no gaming" Probably not. I think I put a little too much english on my last post. Maybe to them it's good. Maybe not. I really can't speak for them. I do know they have a quibble about this or that, but it's not as bad as I have gotten about it.

I think your comment about playing with an SO is true, and applicable to any prior relationship, I think. Friends, family, etc

[Ian Cooper]

There are some games out there which have stabbed at making 'party creation'part of the process. Off the top of my head Orkworld springs to mind - the players have a pool of points to spend on creating a household, both pcs and npcs. This joint creation seems likely to encourage shared goals.

Hero Wars introduced (in Orlanth is dead via incarnations in King of Dragon Pass and on their webiste http://www.glorantha.com/tools/clan_start.html) the clan generator for Orlanthi games. This is a a series of questions about the player's ancestors behaviour at important mythic and historic moments, which defines the modern clan, its attitudes, and special magics. Fan material (okay me in In Wintertop's Shadow and Kevin McDonald for his Carmanian campaign: http://kpmcdona.home.mindspring.com/carmania/tara/questionnaire/) has extended the idea for other background areas.

The idea is that you collectively define you clan or noble house before character generation, sharing in the decision making process and building a sense of community with its struggles, friends and enemies, before going in to character creation. It is a neat idea allowing the players to build their own community, and have a sense of both shared ownership and origin.

I am sure there are other approaches - but this kind of group centered character creation process makes a lot of sense to me. I can see it working in ohter games too. The cimmunity of a free trader or scout ship in a SF game seems to be another immediate example.

[clehrich]

I can see it working in ohter games too. The cimmunity of a free trader or scout ship in a SF game seems to be another immediate example.

That's quite disturbing, actually, because a lot of what Jack is describing is very familiar to me from an SF game where the PCs are the total crew of a starship.  The GM more or less figured that because we're all crew and members of the same military force, we'd naturally become a unit.  While he encouraged us to invent links among ourselves in "private life," these were only relevant to the game if they happened to touch on the issues dealt with by the ship and its missions.  So you quickly got what happened in Jack's game: some players had designed detailed and interwoven backgrounds, but since those backgrounds didn't mesh with the ship's missions, they were irrelevant color, and deprotagonization occurred rapidly.

[Ian Cooper]

So you quickly got what happened in Jack's game: some players had designed detailed and interwoven backgrounds, but since those backgrounds didn't mesh with the ship's missions, they were irrelevant color, and deprotagonization occurred rapidly.

Interesting. Do you think that if you had more input in designing your ship and unit - say a questionnaire that asked you to choose a name, someunit tradtions, famous battles in the unit history, ethos, how others regarded you etc first, that you might then have created characters who meshed with the story line more easily? Assuming that the GM picked up on the story directions you etablished for the unit.

The idea is that for a GM to pick up on the storyhooks one character adds to he can end up de-protagonizing others,but if he picks up the story hooks created for the group, then he can empower you all.

[Matt Gwinn]

I'd like to see sessions move away from the party model entirely. I like having the PC group, but I think a constantly cycling focus on each PC's own sideline plots would be great. Every dog has his day every time, as it were. The other players would play their regular PCs or NPCs as the situtation permits, but during Your Scene you're the focus of attention, and Your Shtick is everyone's interest. And then it's the next guy's turn. I don't think this is easy, although I have some ideas about how it might be done, but protagonization would be a snap in such a structure.

Anyone ever tried something like this?

I try to do this with my D&D 3E game on a regular basis.  In part, I do it to prevent the more social players from hogging all the attention, but mostly I do it to ensure that everyone feels that their character is important.  As play progresses I find that it becomes easier and easier because the characters have been together for a while and tend to have a vested interest in the survival or happiness of a fellow character.  Plus my players don't need to be the center of attention to have a good time (usually).

This is how I generally work things; I come up with a storyline based on the background of one of the PCs and run anywhere from 2 to 8 sessions on that storline.  Once that storyline reaches a reasonable conclusion or stopping point I will start concentrating on a different PCs background.   By the time each character has had his time in the spotlight the group as a whole has managed to intertwine their stories to the point where I can jump back and forth between character arcs thus maintaining more than one story at a time.  Everyone understands that their character will have his chance to shine and I think that is the most important aspect of this type of play.  I've been running the same D&D campaign 3 or 4 times a month for a little over a year now and it's worked out rather well.

I find it particularly useful when I know a player is going to miss a few session.  I can move the focus of the game to someone else's character and the absent player doesn't really miss anything pertinent to his character.

,Matt G.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The idea is that for a GM to pick up on the storyhooks one character adds to he can end up de-protagonizing others,but if he picks up the story hooks created for the group, then he can empower you all.

Hi, Ian.

I think I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure if a questionaire is the way to go. Whenever I see that sort of thing, I think *homework* I never did homework in school. This explains my grades.

That aside, I think the important thing is if the GM picks up and uses it so that it is central to play and not meaningless color as Chris described.

[Matt Gwinn]

I think I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure if a questionaire is the way to go. Whenever I see that sort of thing, I think *homework* I never did homework in school. This explains my grades.

I think having a character creation session would help alleviate the homework aspect.  I find that it also helps establish a more cohesive group of characters.  Of course, these sessions only work for people that can generate ideas on the spot.  Some players need days or weeks to come up with a character concept that is not only well developed but also appeals to their style of play.

One thing I did in my D&D capain to encourage my players to do "homework" was reward them with experience.  I granted players 1000 experience points for every page of background or flair they developed for their character.  The process not only gave the players a vested interest in their characters but also provided me with a lot of ideas for storylines.

,Matt G.

[clehrich]

One thing I did in my D&D capain to encourage my players to do "homework" was reward them with experience. I granted players 1000 experience points for every page of background or flair they developed for their character. The process not only gave the players a vested interest in their characters but also provided me with a lot of ideas for storylines.

While I applaud the concept, I fear the method.  Writing up material is easier for some than others, to put it baldly.  If you were to GM a game this way with me as a player, I promise that you would not like the result: a forty-page writeup, entirely coherent and deeply considered, but requiring you to hand me 40,000 x.p. from the outset.  There really is such a thing as too much prior character background and depth, almost no matter what the game, because if I crank one of these suckers out and you try to reward me for it, you're going to end up locked into my structure --- it's a way for a player to railroad the GM, in essence.

Apart from simply setting an arbitrary limit on the points, which seems to me more or less irrelevant, can anyone think of a way to create the same effect without handing over all control to a very few fast-typing players?

[Matt Gwinn]

If you were to GM a game this way with me as a player, I promise that you would not like the result: a forty-page writeup, entirely coherent and deeply considered, but requiring you to hand me 40,000 x.p. from the outset.

A couple of my players said the same thing, but in the end time and procrastination caught up with them and the most I got was 15 pages the least was 3.  I also allowed them to use the awarded experience to purchase magic items on a 1 XP = 1gp scale.  the catch was that they needed to incorporate that item into their background somehow.  Meaning that  if they used points to buy a +1 longsword, tey needed to explain where and how they got it and why it was important to their character.

There really is such a thing as too much prior character background and depth, almost no matter what the game, because if I crank one of these suckers out and you try to reward me for it, you're going to end up locked into my structure --- it's a way for a player to railroad the GM, in essence.

I disagree.  Even my most gamist and greedy players turned in reasonable backgrounds.  It all comes down to whether or not you trust your players to make decisions that add to everyone's enjoyment.  

Let's say you wrote up your 40 page background.  That puts you at 6th level with no magic items for starters.  then, because everyone else in the party is lower level than you, you go up in levels slower and they go up faster.  Before you know it you're only a level apart.  Works out fine with me.

Let's say you got really ambitions and wrote 200 pages.  Ok, now you're a god and everyone else is first level.  Either you get board because the party is fighting orcs or everyone else dies because you're fighting the Tarrasque.  Either way the game will die out quick and that would be your fault.  

The whole, "I'm going to exploit every opportunity the GM gives me," attitude is likely to deteriorate any game no matter what approach you take.  

,Matt G.

[clehrich]

The whole, "I'm going to exploit every opportunity the GM gives me," attitude is likely to deteriorate any game no matter what approach you take.

No no, I didn't mean this.  I genuinely like the idea of rewarding players for coming up with detailed backgrounds and otherwise doing their homework.  When I generate my 40-page monstrosity, believe me, it's not going to be because I want the points as such.  It's because you've encouraged me to do this, and more or less told me, "More is better."  The fact that I end up more powerful is just an additional strain on the game.  What will happen, though, is that if you have to structure your game-world such that every PC's background is both true and important, and I have 40 pages and somebody else has 3, then the world is much more about me than it is about him.  Regardless of power per se, that's a problem --- I'm railroading the game, like it or not.

[Matt Gwinn]

if you have to structure your game-world such that every PC's background is both true and important, and I have 40 pages and somebody else has 3, then the world is much more about me than it is about him.

Not necessarily true, but mostly because I don't build the world around the information given to be by the players.  I merely incorporate that information into the world I have already established.  

As the GM it's my responsibility to make sure everyone gets his time to shine.  A lot of the time I will throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks.  If a player gives me a lot of background it simply makes it easier to deside what to throw when its that character's turn in the spotlight.  When a player doesn't give me anything to work its more of a shot in the dark and they have to live with what my creative genius can come up with.  I try my best based on what I know about the character and the play, but I don't feel the least bit bad when an idea falls to the floor.  IMO, if a player doesn't care about his character's story why should I?  

Even when a player doesn't give me a background to work with, I still give ample opportunity for input.  I constantly ask players where they want to go with their characters.  Asking questions like: Where do you see your character at 10th level?  What would cause the most conflict in your character's life? What NPCs interest you the most?  What would make the game more fun for you?

It's all about communication and input.  In the end, you get what you give.

,Matt G.

[Jason Lee]

On the issue of rewarding players for background creation, I honesty don't like the idea of linking it to a system mechanic.  

Some people like writing a character background, building a life timeline, keeping a journal, and other such stuff.  You'll gain rewards from the behavior if your group likes the behavior.  The GM may use your details to spotlight your character, the other people in the group will show interest in your creativity, not to mention the fact that fleshing out the character may well be all the reward you need.  Chances are it is a lot more important to the player that someone says 'Wow, that's cool!' than it is that they get some extra points.

Some people don't like this sort of stuff.  They may not like the paperwork, they may want the character to develop in game, or they may simply not be interested in exploring their character in that fashion.  You'll be punishing the 'don't likes' for having different priorities.