Opinions on Protagonism

[Joshua Patterson]

After throughly digesting "My Life with Master" and more recently Ron's Narrativism essay, I started thinking more about protagonism and my past experiences of role-playing.

In almost all games I've played, I've never felt like one of the most important characters in the game world from the GM's point of view.  I'm sure we've all been there, where you feel like the GM has the "special" NPC that gets things designed around.  My question is this...

Am I selfish for wanting the entire game centered around me and my fellow players, even perhaps so far as to have the world designed with us in mind?

From my understanding of Narrativism play, I would say absolutely not.  That narrativist play requires this.  Also the same goes from Gamist play, again with my understaning of it.

What about Sim play?  Is it unfair to ask that a sim game be completely centered on the PCs?  Would/could that break the "dream"?

What would your opinion be on an acceptable level of protagonism?
And does it changed based upon...

1.  The creative agenda at hand.
2.  Your role in the project...whether it be player, GM, or designer.


Joshua

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Joshua,

Am I selfish for wanting the entire game centered around me and my fellow players, even perhaps so far as to have the world designed with us in mind?

That's one of those social questions, isn't it? "Selfish" is usually meaningful only insofar as a particular group/community and its goals are concerned. (I went out on a limb calling Prima Donnas "selfish" in my essay, hoping that the community-judgment involved would be implicit.)

And I expect that this issue can be a dial, rather than a fixed position for a person. In game #1, I might be very concerned with my character being the hub of all things; in game #2, I might not.

And let's not forget that central to the story does not have to be synonymous with central to the imaginary setting and situation; protagonists are often "minor players" in larger-scale events, yet still central in story/audience terms.

Especially when playing HeroQuest and Trollbabe, it's very clear to all of us that the characters are personally quite small in the scheme of things, as "things" see them. But the story is not the "things" - it's the characters. They do have the screen-time, so to speak.

From my understanding of Narrativism play, I would say absolutely not. That narrativist play requires this. Also the same goes from Gamist play, again with my understaning of it.

What about Sim play? Is it unfair to ask that a sim game be completely centered on the PCs? Would/could that break the "dream"?

I'm thinking that all this is a little broadly-painted. All three modes are pretty diverse, and whether every player-character is necessarily a protagonist is pretty questionable.

I'll stick by my bulleted points in the Narrativist essay about what people probably want from player-characters in these modes, but I think it's really important to see that not all player-characters necessarily have to qualify (you'll see the essay says "one or more" not "all").

What would your opinion be on an acceptable level of protagonism?
And does it changed based upon...

1. The creative agenda at hand.
2. Your role in the project...whether it be player, GM, or designer.

Um. "Acceptable" is another one of those social terms. Imagine an instance of play (one or more sessions, maybe lots more). Look at protagonism for the player-characters in that context, and how it was achieved, or whatever. Do you accept that, in the sense of, "That was just right, let's do it again!" I'm not sure anyone can answer for anyone else, in terms of setting the minimal level.

I'll answer more in a bit, especially for your #2.

Best,
Ron

[Joshua Patterson]

I understand that most everything I've brought up is a social question, and I fully agree that it should be a dial and not a switch.  Which is why I was curious as to what everyone thought was the acceptable level for *them*.  And did it change based upon the things I listed.  


Joshua