non-narrativist "protagonized" forms of play

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm really scratching my head now.

I consider "story," "protagonist," and "theme" to be related terms, and that the link between them concerns protagonist decisions. I also think that the unit represented by them is a viable product of all three modes of play. The existence of the unit, as an outome of play, is not limited to Narrativism.

I also think that this unit can be produced by almost-total GM input, or by almost-total player input, or by some functional blend of GM and player input.

Please note that when the method is GM-heavy, that the GM is indeed "playing" the characters, in terms of theme/decision heavy points in the story. GM-delivered protagonism is, in my view, common and assumed in a wide variety of games and across all of role-playing history. It may be done through overt and basic agreement about it, through illusionist techniques involving scene framing and IIEE, or, more negatively, through railroading.

So Marco's play descriptions, and there are several to choose from here at the Forge as well as at the JAGS site, all provide pretty good examples of that unit being brought about.

Not a shred of my text regarding the Impossible Thing challenges that point. Nor have I ever challenged that point in any text or post. Nor does this challenge any element of my definition of Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

GM-delivered protagonism . . . well, the only form that worked for me was (I guess) Illusionism, really.  As in, for a bit the GM succeded in convincing me that my choices mattered, and I and others were emotinally engaged with the character - but before long I realized that was only true when my choices matched his choices.  And I lost my emotional interest in the character.  Not sure about the others.

Gordon

[Paul Czege]

Hey Ron,

I consider "story," "protagonist," and "theme" to be related terms, and that the link between them concerns protagonist decisions. I also think that the unit represented by them is a viable product of all three modes of play.

I agree with the linkage, but "viable" seems like a strong word to me. Protagonism, in my experience, is a delicate creature. It dies easily when subjected to whiff-producing resolution mechanics. And my experience dovetails with Gordon's. If a character's protagonism is revealed to have a GM-derived nature, either a revolt from the play group ensues, or the player of that character loses interest and the protagonism of the character withers as a result.

Still, maybe "theoretical possibility" for GM-derived protagonism wasn't the best phrase. What I meant was that a GM's ability to sustain it for the duration of a multi-session scenario was theoretically possible, that is, not something I'd ever witnesssed.

Of course, that skeptical assessment is coming from a guy with a history of being quickest to bail from a game when he realizes he isn't authoring his own character. It's hard for an organism to be viable in a poisonous environment. So it seems the question is, how poisonous to GM-derived protagonism are the games that I don't inhabit?

Paul

[Gordon C. Landis]

I just thought I should add - when I say GM-deliverd protagonism only worked for me in a probably-Illusionist game, before the illusion was revealed . . . I'm using Paul's protagonist definition, there.  Emotional connection, audience, all that.

I'm starting to get a feel for this more general protagonism, and that may be a different issue entirely.  GM-delivered "PC-omph" may be much more common, even in my experience - gotta think about that a bit, though, since I'm not even sure what GM-delivered "PC-omph" would look/feel like.

Gordon

[Mike Holmes]

So it seems the question is, how poisonous to GM-derived protagonism are the games that I don't inhabit?

For some, not at all.

This is just your preference we're talking about here. I know you find it hard to believe, but there are some players who not only accept, but demand that the GM do all this for them. For most people it will probably somewhere in between. That is, they want the GM to provide for protagonism part of the time, and they'll do it part of the time. Or in certain measures. No, this is not TITBB, because it's an exchange. Maybe one session, the GM railroads the characters into a situation where they look good defeating some bad guy. The next session the player authors through some stuff about his characters relationships. Whatever. The point is that only some players want to be the sole source of protagonism.

To deny that this can be enjoyable is to deny that any other media is enjoyable. For indeed watching a movie, the audience has no say in authoring the protagonists role. Yes, RPGs are different in that they offer you that opportunity, but that doesn't mean that everyone wants that role. Some players are more passive, for example, and would rather the protagonism be delivered to them. Other players find that there's some sort of Immersion that they feel that's broken when they author, so would prefer to leave it in the GM's hands. There are probably innumerable reasons.

None of which work for you, Paul. But that's OK, different styles for different players.

Mike