It suddenly hit me why I had not been enjoying my game group of late, and why I no longer play with them at the moment. It's actually a whole mess of things, but Protagonization is a key issue. Just not the only issue. I offer this in the hopes it helps somebody.

My GM has a particular style where he takes information from the players to fashion "the story." This information is either from the character background, which is mostly generated using Central Casting from Task Force Games or in asking the question "What do you want to do with this character."

This sounds like a good plan on the surface, however, there a bit of the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast going on here, I think. I'm not entirely certain, you see. The result is rather mixed. I'll attempt to illustrate.

The last game, using D&D3e, has an epic approach. There was some kind of prophesy with each of the PCs being a major part of that prophesy. Except for my character. I really can't complain because until close to the end of that game, I wasn't able to play regularly at all. Once a month *if that.* I had a character so I would have something to do when I could show up. Huzzah, and such, but I was also bored out of my mind and was considering spending my time playing would have been better spent elsewhere. This didn't change when I changed jobs and could play regularly. I was a tag-along. An add-on. An extaneous character.

I was starting to think that maybe it wasme but I recalled a game where my then-girlfriend was in a similar situation. It was Warhammer. We were in Altdorf. She wanted to go to Marienburg for some reason out of her bakground. The group in general, which was centered around me as it happens, was heading the opposite direction. She was de-protagonized, much as I was in the game I described above. She didn't take it well, either. I recall she left one session in tears. She was not having any fun.

Part of what made me realize this was reading the Simulationist article. We were dealing with very Sim character creation, especially with Central Casting, and not all of the PCs went together very well. So the GM would fashion the story out of these backgrounds and players desired, such as they were expressed, as best he could. Those whose characters really didn't fit in stayed with the group "just 'cause" which is not very engaging.

I invite comments and questions at this point since this is the main thing I had realized about my group's play.

Certainly sounds dysfunctional. I've seen it too --- heck, we all have, I suspect.

You've hit on a lot of things here, but for me the #1 problem is The Party. Taken to this degree --- and it often is --- you've got a variant of the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. You've got:

1. The players can invent anything they like about their character backgrounds, and trust me, it'll all be relevant and totally protagonizing.

2. The characters will all join hands and be a PC party because I say so.

This doesn't make sense, full stop. So when you have a character whose background-arising drives do not fit with the rest of The Party, you have a player who's being told, "You can make up anything you like, but you made up stupid things, and we're going to blow you off." Naturally it all ends in tears.

BTW, some of these issues came up in the thread about Useless Details, where it started to come down to Design Before (and everybody bend) or Design During (and nobody pre-plan).

But I think the big deal here is party formation.

1. Is it necessary? Often, yes, in which case
2. What exactly is the goal, and why? Leading to
3. What's the best way to get there?

I think the answer amounts to Fang's sharing concept. Overtly or subtly, you have to tell the players what the goal is, and why. Convenience is not a good answer. Now let everybody work together to realize this goal. Should it be before? after? both? Decide exactly why there needs to be a party in this particular game, then have everyone work at building one.

If the group pulls that off, then they simply can't have the mismatch you describe, unless the mismatch is a deliberate construction by a player. In that case, of course, the "But I want to go to X not Y!" is not infuriating but a focus on something constructed as a tension point.

I’m left wondering if the players made up their character separately or together as a group. As Christopher said, if all of the players made up their characters thinking that the door was wide open then you are almost always going to run into problems of party cohesion. One of them will end up being the “lone wolf” and want to go hang out by himself and mope. Part of this I believe comes from the GM’s technique and part of it comes from poor communication between all of the players.

In a Sim game many times, even if all of the players are dedicated to Sim, they come expecting wildly different things. I agree with Christopher. The GM and players need to sit down before the game and discuss what everyone wants, and what the ultimate goal of having the party together will be. This may mean that during character creation some players will have to give up freedom (they may call this realism), but you will all gain in the form of campaign focus, and complimentary characters.

It also seems to me that the GM has the idea that he is the one solely responsible for creating the story—again a lack of communication between the players and the GM, but also I believe a larger misconception about roleplaying in general held among many people.

I suppose it depends when and how the GM was fashioning the story. Does he pre-plan everything once he has the characters in hand, or does he keep things open as play progresses? Does he keep all the PCs merely along for the ride (deprotagonizing them all), or does he only isolate the characters whose backgrounds don’t quite mesh with his overall plan?

fleetingGlow wrote: I’m left wondering if the players made up their character separately or together as a group.

I suppose it depends when and how the GM was fashioning the story. Does he pre-plan everything once he has the characters in hand, or does he keep things open as play progresses? Does he keep all the PCs merely along for the ride (deprotagonizing them all), or does he only isolate the characters whose backgrounds don’t quite mesh with his overall plan?

Right now, I'm running a D&D game with a very similar feel to what you describe, in that all the PCs are connected to a prophecy, and that I used the PC backgrounds to create the prophecy and to hang the game on.

However, I did one other thing: I specified that the PCs had to be ready and willing to work for a necromancer, and specific backgrounds that fit into what I was planning were rewarded with slighly more powerful/effective characters. Oh, and people got a reward for connecting their characters in some way. Basically, I made an effort to provide a reason for everyone being together, and then, with the prophecy, gave them a shared secret to keep -- there are elements of the prophecy that could be problematic if they got out. "The party" works -- but you have to design it in there.

Also, the problem could be solved by just making sure everyone gets screen time. That is, if your girlfriend got as much time as everyone else, and what she did seemed just as important, it wouldn't have mattered that she wasn't with the group. This requires a group that is comfortable with the idea that when someone spits off, they're going to have to wait a bit to get their turn, but that's the price you pay for freedom.

So, yes, the problem is protagonism -- but there are ways of dealing with it while maintaining a relatively "standard" RPG set-up.

xiombarg wrote: Also, the problem could be solved by just making sure everyone gets screen time. That is, if your girlfriend got as much time as everyone else, and what she did seemed just as important, it wouldn't have mattered that she wasn't with the group. This requires a group that is comfortable with the idea that when someone spits off, they're going to have to wait a bit to get their turn, but that's the price you pay for freedom.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

xiombarg wrote: Also, the problem could be solved by just making sure everyone gets screen time. That is, if your girlfriend got as much time as everyone else, and what she did seemed just as important, it wouldn't have mattered that she wasn't with the group. This requires a group that is comfortable with the idea that when someone spits off, they're going to have to wait a bit to get their turn, but that's the price you pay for freedom.

Yeah, but the GM wouldn't have gone for it. This was five years ago, but he hasn't changed much in this regard. Splitting the party is *bad* to him, but this is a completely different issue, I think.

xiombarg wrote: I assume, however, that he doesn't state this requirement up-front.

A lot of the problem seems to me rooted in the random backgrounds. I’m not sure how the central casting mechanic works, but if player decide that their backgrounds don’t mesh why not pick a new random background instead of re-rolling the whole character. Alternatively, why not work with the GM in order to slightly tweak the original backgrounds so that they better fit with both the party as a whole and the preconceived campaign direction.

Central Casting is like Lifepath from Mekton/Cyberpunk and other games but much more involved. It does take seveal hours for the whole group to go through it

but if player decide that their backgrounds don’t mesh why not pick a new random background instead of re-rolling the whole character.Alternatively, why not work with the GM in order to slightly tweak the original backgrounds so that they better fit with both the party as a whole and the preconceived campaign direction.

xiombarg wrote:
...
However, I did one other thing: I specified that the PCs had to be ready and willing to work for a necromancer
...

Actually, I take that back. The GM did give some guidance, although after the PCs were rolled up. He emailed everyone a plot summary of what we're going to be doing. I don't think it gave much direction. Basically we were on a quest to recover an artifact know aptly as the McGuffin. He tried to link the whole group relationship map-wise but it didn't work. It didn't work for me (see the asshole player thread) for a number of reasons, the biggest being the social context. I do not know most of these people and would not be all that sad if I never saw them ever again. So linking my character to them "you knew them from college" just didn't work because I was not linked to the *players* at all.

I still have the txt file of the plot for those interested via PM. It's not that big a deal and probably going to be more confusing than enlightening to the casual reader. I mean I don't understand it, really.

I find your last post the most interesting of all so far. The idea that you were not connected to the players and therefore not connected to the Characters brings up a point about certain gaming assumptions.

Party with a Purpose
Am I correct in saying that when we game we assume we're playing, for the most part, with friends or friends of friends? Ideally even strangers come in with a sense that they will become a more intimate part of the group. I find it harder to play a satisfying game with many of my friends and its not really their fault. Indeed it is not their fault at all. Intimate knowledge of one another has made us lazy and assumptive when it comes to taking a game seriously.

Playing with acquaintances has been a bit more satisfying for several reasons. One, their styles are new ground and are interesting to watch and interact with. Two, they do not make too many gaming assumptions about me. "There goes Sean on his Dark Gritty fantasy kick again." Does not come up in play. I sit down with the idea that I am going to make an impression on them, not to impress them if you catch my meaning.

So I think playing with strangers /acqaintances can be a very rearding experience. Of course mileage may vary depending on the strangers.
In your case getting to know them or make an impression on them may not have been worth it to you.

Sidekick

"I am not a sidekick, I am a Co-star" What is Frodo without Sam? Batman without Robin? In a group of characters who are following a quest oriented campaign, could not at least half of them be Grog (to steal an Ars MAgica expression) or Sidekick characters. In the Belgariad, Olgarra's blacksmith guy who went along and learned to fight and stuff, well he was basically taking up space until the very last battle where he becomes an integreal part of the Prophecy (By dying and rising again).

These Auxiliary Protaganists are very important figures even though they are not the main focus of the story. Everyone can and should have their moment to shine of course but if the idea is get together for some artistic entertainment, to tell the Story or the Stories, then I think it can function very well.

Now in a long term game it can expand beyond that. I think, to my mind, after season 2 of ST:TNG at least hlaf the stories focused on Picard/Data. Now, everyone had their day and some great moments by the other characters but, effectively the empahsis was on Picard/Data. Now I think ST:TNG handled that pretty well.

Ont he other hand we have Voyager, which , once it got Jerry Ryan, every freakin week "7 of 9 was going back to the collective." Harry Kim and Neelix were forgotten characters and in general, the story was badly done from a Protaganism stand point. Everyone did not have their day.

Just some thoughts, not sure how to sum them up or maybe they need to go in a new thread...

Sean
ADGBoss

I think part of the problem in all such games is the "party" dynamic. The Star Trek examples hit this pretty effectively: a show in which there are central characters but periodically even the minor ones get their own shows is more RPG-friendly than one in which the minor characters are, well, minor. The problem is that if you have more than, say, four players (apart from GM), it takes a long time for each PC to cycle around to center-stage in a traditional party-dynamic game. Furthermore, the nature of the party is such that there's going to be a leader, intentionally or otherwise, and that person can't help hogging the stage unless she's a truly brilliant leader.

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?

clehrich wrote: Anyone ever tried something like this?

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?

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

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....

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

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.

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 wrote: 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.

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?

Ian Cooper wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Matt and Rich are going back and forth about character creation and using background to create stories...and I have to say the method sounds all Simulationist to me: "Here's my character, now make a story for us from it!"

And I don't mean that in a bad way, I use and have used that method myself, I mean it from the perspective of "Narrativism." In that detailed, colorful backgrounds the GM uses to create stories are not it. They're an essential element of "it" but missing definite components of Narrativist prep and play.

cruciel pipes in with his statements about what this player likes to do versus what that player likes to do and how the system rewards can screw certain types of players. The idea of system rewards being of paramount importance in play -- so much so that they cause player tension and rift -- sounds Gamist to me.

We're talking GNS preferences...and is it just me, or is that going right over everyone's head? (Or am I seeing things?)

greyorm wrote: cruciel pipes in with his statements about what this player likes to do versus what that player likes to do and how the system rewards can screw certain types of players. The idea of system rewards being of paramount importance in play -- so much so that they cause player tension and rift -- sounds Gamist to me.

We're talking GNS preferences...and is it just me, or is that going right over everyone's head? (Or am I seeing things?)

I agree with the vast majority of what's been said, but I wanted to make a few comments.

I think the success of the One Party System (to coin a catchy phrase) depends almost entirely on social contract issues (what doesn't?). Some games have the OPS built into then fabric of the game, so that our assumptions about the party are given substance in the game world. Good examples would be Nobilis (a family of Nobles due to circumstances), Continuum (a "corner" of time travelers for mutual protection), Rune (a war party of Vikings), and the much less effective efforts made in WoD games (Vampire coteries, Mage cabals, etc.). But I think it's safe to say that if the One Party System is going to work well, it would be a big help if it was specifically incorperated into the way the game works.

If you'll look at the places where the OPS is most effective (I'd argue for Nobilis, Continuum, Rune, and others like them), you'll notice that it's not necessary for the characters to like each other, to have positive relationships, or to want to be together all the time. The necessaities of the game environment force them to stay together as a group. While this limits the kinds of games you can tell, it does mean that the Party stays together, for better or worse.

Consequently, I'd argue that the opposite is true as well: especially for gamer audience that comes with the expectation of an OPS, abandoning the Party needs to be built into the fabric of the game. Examples of this being done effectively are fewer, but Universalis comes to mind (just because ALL characters are modified PCs and will not be in the same place) along with games that encourage PC villians and player-antogonism (where one PC can run off and plot against the others). There are definitely other ways of encouraging Multi-Party Systems (including Parties of 1), but I can't think of any that I remember looking terribly effective.

But, like many people have noted, trying to force/assume a One Party System on a game that doesn't offer solid support for that... well, communication is the real key.

Later.
Jonathan

clehrich wrote:
Anyone ever tried something like this?

Marco wrote:

All the time! And it's great! :)

None of this has to do with "protagonization" per se--but here are some suggestions:

1. Time Slicing is fine--if you allow players involved in the same thread to group and share time (1 player gets 15 min, 2 get 30 min) then, while there's some impetus towards group cohesion, people off by themselves are assured of their time.

2. Have the players discuss what they're gonna do before they do it. Surprising the GM is fine--but giving the GM some prep time can lead to greater depth.

3. Everyone's an adult and the GM (the moderator) makes a real attempt to be fair. If someone's in a long combat, the GM might stop the clock. If someone doesn't get to play much one session, the GM and other players respect that next time.

4. Have other things to do if the group is big. I've been in games where there's a video going in one room, a Playstation in another, and a couple of guys out in the pool. We were *all* there for the role-playing but the players (I think 6) were getting 1.5 hr time-slices (it was a hard-core 3-day game-athon with little sleep).

5. Be entertaining. If it's "spotlight" on you, and the other players are watching, exercise a little showmanship. This could be coming up with a few good one-liners, really playing things to the hilt with dramatic flair, or good, old fashioned risk taking (if it suits you). During a spotlight session it's not a good time to argue with the GM about small matters, play in an unfocused fashion, or exhibit turtle behavior.

6. GM Tricks--these probably interfere with protagonization (I suspect that for some people any word that comes out of the GM's moth deprotagonizes them)--but here are some timing tricks:
a. Dramatic enterance (now, if players are being brought together it shouldn't be against their will--but if everyone's in synch then this can work very well). Have two plot-lines that looklike they won't intersect come together in a surprising way.
b. Cliffhang: cut short another player's session (make the time up later) to let him hang off a cliff (warning: some people *hate* this--don't do it to them ... most people (IME) dig it, though, and it's great for the spectators)
c. Out of Character Revelation: during time-slicing something can be revealed in one thread that *really* changes the meaning of another. Usually it's best to cast *past* events in a new light (that guy you killed? He was the Heiress's *father!!* (gasp!).

-Marco

I have to toss in a "me too" here. I have to admit that this is a major reason (in addition to work/life related issuses) why I have not gamed in almost two years. The guy who runs many of our games acts quite simirlarly to Jack's GM. He comes up with an "epic" plot, something huge and embroiled, then gives us some minor pointers towards char creation (D&D3E) and then basically has us follow along the railroad tracks. If you want to do something different you can but you lose "screen time" for it.

Interestingly enough though it seems that this behavior has finally come to a head and the game has imploded due to this behavior. As such I am going to start testing the waters with my group to see if they can handle something less scripted, though I am nervous that all they have ever played is Sim stuff and at my heart I favor Nar.

I plan on doing something like the "X-Games" that have been mentioned here where there is a different indie game each week (or two if it goes long). After getting througha bunch of systems and styles I will get their opinions on something more lengthy.

If anyone is interested I plan on running Wraiths (via either Risus, Window, or GURPS), Inspectres, Sorcerer, TROS, Universalis (which I am chomping at the bit to play), and possibly Wyrd. Anyone have any suggestions on a good "order" for these to kind of slowly ease them into more and more uncharted terrirtory?

-Shane

Buddha Nature wrote:
If anyone is interested I plan on running Wraiths (via either Risus, Window, or GURPS), Inspectres, Sorcerer, TROS, Universalis (which I am chomping at the bit to play), and possibly Wyrd. Anyone have any suggestions on a good "order" for these to kind of slowly ease them into more and more uncharted terrirtory?

-Shane

Hi there,

I suggest that InSpectres and The Riddle of Steel are best suited for your purposes, mainly because playing the characters is so accessible during play, and the systems' reward mechanics are constantly available as well. (H'm, to a certain extent those phrases are saying the same things, although not entirely.)

Best,
Ron

Well here are my thoughts on the systems and how they could be good/bad for the aforementioned "easing."

Inspectres - Fairly minimal prep time on my end (I think) which is a good thing since my time is fairly limited these days, easy mechanics to pick up, but the narration of successes mechanic might be something they might have trouble wrapping their heads around--though hopefully the comic tone might help in that regard, the confessional is going to be a bit tough I am betting though

Universalis - No prep neccessary, I am not sure how easy the teaching of the system would be though (anyone have any suggestions from demos?), but it is definitely one I am _way_ psyched to try out - I think it is the one that could really crack open the creativity and narrow mindset of my players

Risus/Window - You are right in that they are mechanically fairly simple which would be good. The Wraiths I am reffereing to was mentioned in Actual Play here. It is more of a metagame mechanic - each player (there is no GM) plays a member of a special forces team working on a mission, but only part of the team is actually physically on the mission, the rest act as "surveillence". All communication is spoken as through radios... It is timed as well (like an hour long)

TROS - It would be definitely similarly feeling to most of what they have played and I would run it in George R R Martin's Song of Ice and Fire world. There would be a lot of prep though and I would really need to feel comfortable with the combat system to be able to run it - not that I am adverse to that though. My concern would be as to whether or not in a one-two session game would highlight the SA's or not--not just the combat.

Sorcerer - I would agree with Valamir here, I mentioned to the players a while back about how Sorcerer ran - that characters were as powerful as they were willing to be - and they thought it was crazy--that the characters would run out of control... Something I thought boded ill...

Wyrd - Scott is awesome, Wyrd is awesome. It is a game that really takes some mindset shifting - I tossed it on the list because it would be another way of moving them away from their "comfort zone"

Donjon - I didn't put this on the first list because I didn't have it, now I do. I think either as comic or serious it could be another good way to help them out - the genre would be comfortable, but they might need to get used to the narration technique.

Ron - what did you mean about the "reward mechanics?"

-Shane