non-narrativist "protagonized" forms of play

[Bruce Baugh]

All I mean is that a given person is a protagonist when the events in which he is involved are considered as a story.  I.e., from a distance.

I realize I may just be treading into a morass of local jargon, but in fact people in many contexts do tell immediate stories in which they are the protagonists. Gaming seems no less suitable for this other media. It's not the sort of story where you know the ending and adjust for it, usually, though that does happen in some kinds of improv and in RPGs like Neel Krishnaswami's angels campaign. But it is nonetheless a combined awareness of the character and of whatever rules apply to the story.

[Mike Holmes]

I pick up the dictionary and read "main character." Aren't the PC's in a sim game the "main characters" of the "story?" (insofar as story *can* be applied--story as an outcome? a simulated -real-life' event that contains story like structure ... whatever)

Um, yeah. I think you didn't read far enough. I was agreeing with you on that...

We can't ditch the term "story" as it applies to Sim-gaming because the whole wide world that doesn't post here *sees* Sim-gaming as a story--and, so far as the metaphore *can* be applied, I think correctly. But we have to allow that the dynamic events that unfold in RPG play are different than traditional media which is delivered as a whole product to the consumer.

I said nothing in terms of story and Sim. Did someone else? Ron and most here have agreed that the term Story is often used just as you describe it. My point was that's why the Narrativists don't use it any more.

Mike

[Marco]

Um, yeah. I think you didn't read far enough. I was agreeing with you on that...

Mike

No-no--I did read that (I read the whole thing)--you said I was invoking jargon. I'm trying to avoid jargon.

Someone says "I ran this game with a great story."

I can go "yuh, I know what you're saying."

Someone says "Well, my character's the protagionist--but I see him as an anti-hero ..."

I can go "yuh, I get you."

If *I'm* asked to explain a game, at this point (although not before The Forge), I'll describe it in terms of SITUATION ... in terms of adjudicating RESULTS of player ACTIONS. I might use terms like illusionism. All of these specific terms are trying hard to get past the metaphore that is story, author, protagonist, plot, etc.

But when someone pulls out a definition for "protagonist" that I disagree with, I'll reach for the dictionary.

I just wanna eat the cake--I don't want to keep it.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

To be clear, Marco, we disagree on the Jargon issue, but agree on the outcome of the definition of Protagonism in that it doesn't need to apply only to the Narrativist method.

As for the issue of definitions, you're point was that Paul's definition was unsuitable because it applied to literature. Then you say that yours should apply because it comes from a dictionary. Where do you think the dictionary definition came from, but from literary theory (seeing as it's a term from that theory).

That's what I was refering to with the Antoinette quote. You want to be able to exclude definitions based on the fact that they derive from outside gaming, but not be subject to that restriction yourself.

Mike

[Marco]

I see what you're saying. My reaching for the dictionary was only in response to someone else's using the word protagonist. If you want to call the "protagonists of an RPG" the Player Characters I'm all over that even more. That is actually a correct, unarguable, and fairly riggorous term.

It's when you want to:
a) Use literary terms and then
b) Define them in what I think is a narrow and even misleading fashion

That I
c) Go to the same source you drew from (a definition of 'protagonist') to say "By your own standards I think I've got a legitimate beef with your usage."

-Marco
Edited To add: In short, I think the whole word is wrong--but if it's gonna be used, the Marriam Webster definition is as fair a shake as anyone's.

[Mike Holmes]

But, see, it's OK to create Jargon. I'm aware that you don't like it, but it's a fact of life that people make Jargon, and that it's helpful to do so. At least there are enough of us here that think so that we're not going to stop using Jargon simply because a few people don't like having to use it in communicating here.

And it's not done disingenuously. You seem to be thinking that it's used to be deceptive ("misleading"). I totally disagree. We make no bones about the fact that someone who doesn't know the Jargon of the site may not understand what we're talking about. But we are all willing to go out of our way to let people know what we mean. When Paul first used the term, he posted for all to see exactly what his reasoning was in using the term in question.

So I don't disagree with Paul's attempt to grab a term that, to him seems appropriate to use in describing some RPG effect. I disagree with the particular term he chose, because I agree that a Jargonized version closer to a more common use of the word would be more intuitive, and more broadly useful. He could use something else for his Jargon.

But it's not Jargon in general that's problematic.

I think you owe Paul an apollogy. But, hey, that's just me.

Mike

[Marco]

Hey Paul,

After reading Mike's msg, I'm sorry for a couple of things.

1. I never meant to tell you that "you weren't doing what you said you were doing--" which is how my RPG's-aren't-like-that bit came off. I dig that you're working on creating a shared story--for an audience. I totally believe that. I'm sure you get a fantastic gaming experience out of it.

I was refering to the "completed narrative" (as in a written book or play where the plot, characters, and events are set in type) vs. a "dynamic narrative" where things can and do change a whole lot (and then there's the dice thing)--so I was trying to say RPG's aren't like books.

2. The "misleading" comment. I never intended to be read as saying you were trying to trick anyone (I think I'd have chosen "deceptive" for that). I meant not only confusing as to it's meaning but to some people implying the something far removed from the interpertation they'd (I) give (gave) it.

I don't and never did believe you were trying to obfusicate anything. And I wasn't aware you coined the term. I (honestly) believed Mike Holmes had since I'd seen him using it a lot.

-Marco

[Paul Czege]

Hey Marco,

But when someone pulls out a definition for "protagonist" that I disagree with, I'll reach for the dictionary.

When someone asks you to tell them a story, what do they mean? The problem with your definitions for story and for protagonism is that, while not innacurate, they fail to apprehend the real essence of what's going to satisfy someone's request for story. In our society, when someone requests a story, what they want is something that reaches out and connects with them on a human level, that resonates with their own understanding of the human condition and comments on it. If you give them something less, something that doesn't connect personally, even the chronologue of a main character who solves dilemmas and has dramatic effect on the world, you'll get feedback that it's a bad story, or not a story.

We don't need to use a 50-cent word like 'protagonist' if all we mean is a 'main character'.

But the real issue isn't the terminology. It's the desire by folks for something more than what's being delivered by play. Insisting on a definition for protagonist that's entirely in accord with what a given game can deliver just forces more disillusionment on the person who knows he isn't getting what he wants, and puts him in the position of trying to come up with a new term to get his point across. Yet the only reason to insist on such a baseline definition is because you want the positive association with the word's connotations...the exact same connotations that caused the guy who wants more than what's being delivered to choose the word in the first place to make his point. "No, I don't want a recounting of events, I want a story. No, I don't want a main character, I want a protagonist." The terms have connotations. To want an association with the term for its positive connotations, and then deny it actually means those things is a disservice to the term.

Paul

[Paul Czege]

Hey Marco,

We cross-posted, methinks. For what it's worth, I haven't taken anything you've said on this thread as a personal attack.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

And I wasn't aware you coined the term. I (honestly) believed Mike Holmes had since I'd seen him using it a lot.

Heh, I haven't reached my current posting total by making up all my own stuff from scratch. I'm just working with other people's ideas as often as not.

But I can see how it might look like I come up with a lot... ;-)

I'll try to credit better in the future.

Paul. As to your post, as much as I feel that Marco overstates that people agree with his use of terms, I think that you do as well. I personally see what you both mean by story, and am satisified by either. I don't think that all players neccessarily want or need a Narrativist story.


I've truely felt that some of my characters in more railroaded games were, in fact protagonists in every sense of the word. Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work for everybody.

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Hey Mike,

I personally see what you both mean by story, and am satisified by either. I don't think that all players neccessarily want or need a Narrativist story.

I don't disagree. What I'm arguing against is the filing off of the edges of the terms that allow those that do to articulate their preferences.

Paul

[Marco]

Roger that.

When someone asks for a story, I tell 'em a story. When they ask me to run a game, I do something else. Similar, but different (for me). If your wife asks for a bedtime story you're not gonna pull out the Sorceror rule book ... I figure. More power to ya if that's how things are in the (hypothetical) Czege household.

If you changed the term, I'd have understood it immediately. It'd be clear. The problem comes when you pick a term that's in wide-spread usage and don't mean what you're saying. I had no idea you thought de-protagonized meant disconnecting with an audience.

As far as conotations go, I'd prefer not to call PC's protagonists. To *me* a protagonist connotates an initially passive force that is acted on by an antagonist--I know that ain't what it means, but that's my connotation. To me you're implying that Narrativist play is passive.

That's 'woah' 180-degrees.

-Marco

[Paul Czege]

Oops...forgot one comment...

I've truely felt that some of my characters in more railroaded games were, in fact protagonists in every sense of the word.

Not having been there, I can't disagree. The question I'd ask, is who had ownership of the aspects of gameplay that delivered your character's protagonism? GM-delivered protagonism (in the "audience interest" sense of the term) seems like a theoretical possibility (though not at all to my personal taste, as I'm sure you can imagine). I'd love to see a play report.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

How about Narrativist sorts of Protagonists are acted on by Player Dynamism (as opposed to hypothetical GM Dynamism)?

That's a little problematic, as the player can choose to have the character remain the same, and as such it would be Player Staticism or something.

Just trying out some new terms.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

GM-delivered protagonism (in the "audience interest" sense of the term) seems like a theoretical possibility (though not at all to my personal taste, as I'm sure you can imagine). I'd love to see a play report.

It's really fairly simple (and comes down to my complete lack of "taste"). In MERP, for instance, I had a character who had been given this stuff we called dragon dust by the GM (who suggested that we make it from a dragon we'd killed on a lucky die roll). Anyhow, when we'd take this stuff, we'd get huge piles of extra hit points, and resistance to stun. Which is just whacking powerful in RM. Anyhow, when we'd take the stuff and fight, we'd slaughter armies of baddies.

So, Dave, the GM, would throw huge piles of baddies at us, and we'd get to be cool killin em all.

The characters were heroes in these battles, and seemed very cool to me. Not because of anything that I'd done, really; I just rolled the dice. They were cool because of the abilities given them and situations that the GM put us in. In fact, the GM favored my character, and so he became almost certainly the single and only real protagonist (with the other PC relegated to sidekick status). An epic all about my character, authored by the GM.

Wasn't the best game I've been in (I hated the railroading), but I really liked the character and his huge collection of magic goodies.

This is sort of an extreme example, but that's just to make the point.

Mike