What are the biggest RPG crimes?

[Celebrim]

We're probably not using the term in the same way.

As with most semantic arguments, probably not, though I have just tried to explain exactly how I understand the term. I believe the formal definition of the term involves giving players a guarantee that they will have both agency and be central to the story that they create.

Protagonism, as I use the term, refers to a specific form of meta-gaming where the GM treats PCs differently in-game because they're PCs. If you're playing as The Chosen One, and you get involved in crazy shenanigans because everyone knows you're The Chosen One, then that's one thing. If you're playing as Just Some Guy, and you get involved in crazy shenanigans because you coincidentally look exactly like The Chosen One with a slightly different haircut, then that's protagonism. If you make it to the end of the dungeon, and it turns out the Darth Vader knock-off who was trying to take over the world was secretly your brother, then that's protagonism.

Well, to begin with, I don't think that's remotely close to the idea behind the RPG jargon "protogonism", so you should be cautious that when you use the term that way, most people aren't going to understand you. As I said, "protagonism" means that the player's characters are central to and not merely observers in their own story. With that generally comes agency, which is the ability to make meaningful choices and not merely be swept along to enjoy the ride on the train tracks. The opposite, to deprotagonize the PC's, usually means to fill the game with what are sometimes call "DM PC's" - NPCs that have the role of protagonist in the story and who make all the meaningful choices and are central to the story. So when you describe a situation like "you get involved in crazy shenanigans because you coincidentally look exactly like The Chosen One with a slightly different haircut, then that's protagonism", it's only protagonism in the sense that the if The Chosen One was an NPC and the major story was really about that NPC and the choices they made, then that wouldn't be protagonism.

Secondly, in virtually every game that I've ever been involved in, adventures spring up about the PCs as thickly as if they were Ta'veren in Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time". When my friends and I first read those books, we joked about, "Someone has finally given a name in universe to the quality of being a Player Character." D&D has always, both in its rules and its suggested procedures of play, treated the PCs differently in game than NPCs at least to some extent. Notably, as I indicated, it makes the PCs exceptional in ability (and in 1e AD&D, more so even than later editions) and likewise suggest procedures of play around the PCs where danger is so common, that no NPC would survive the world the PCs live in were they to be subjected to the same random dangers. This has the simple reason that one of the worst crimes a DM can commit in my opinion, worse than favoritism, worse than railroading, worse than fudging the dice, worse perhaps even than having villains they break the rules to keep alive, is having nothing happen. Boredom is the worst thing that can happen in the game, and just about the worst attitude a DM can possibly have is that the players deserve to be bored. Anything worse than that, is likely to be repulsive anti-social behavior not specific to an RPG.

As for the sort of "mess with me" behavior you are describing, that's a very different issue than protagonism (or at least tangential to it) and it's much more of a subjective preference than a general sin. It's like 'Adventure Path' versus 'Sandbox': there is no right or wrong answer, just things that are right or wrong for a group, or which are artfully or unartfully done. When a player creates a backstory for my game, it's usually obvious when they are leaving hooks for me to bite in their backstory - mysterious parentage, strange prophesies, a villainous foil or rival, glimpses of some secret held by those close to them, encounters with deities or other strange powers, an abusive childhood, or what not. Generally speaking a player signals to me from their backstory how much they want me to "mess with them". But when they do this, particularly if they leave things very open ended, I tend to ask them, "I see there are things in your backstory you've left unspecified. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you want me to mess with you?" And if they flippantly answer, "10", I say, "Are you sure? Are you really sure you want a 10? Because a 10 indicates that you want to have a moment where you are likely to be forced to make as a character a difficult madness check, owing to the fact that the world you believe exists is not the one you're going to discover you are living in." "The villain is actually my brother" is more of a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 - I'd hardly feel I need to ask permission for that sort of thing. It should be taken as normal. "You look exactly like The Chosen One of prophesy." is more of a 5 - there are probably more players than not who'd be excited to discover they were actually The Chosen One and be given an opportunity to play that. And if they are OK with that, or whatever level they say they are actually OK with, is where I put a limit on how much what they don't know about their character can change how they view their own character.

I should also say that if a player creates as his backstory that he's the prophesied Chosen One, I'll almost certainly not approve the character in the game. But if the player leaves it open ended for me to fill in who he might be, then I'm much more likely to say, "You know, it actually might make a cool story if this character is a Chosen One of some sort.", and work that into the game. There are a couple of good reasons for that, but one of them is that the person leaving it open ended is probably much less of a spot light hog and isn't going to demand the other players treat his PC as the chosen one.

UPDATE: As a term, "Backstory abuse"? Referring to cases where the DM without the consent of the player alters the character of the PC the player is playing is based on filling in for the player an unwanted backstory, or adding unwanted backstory complications to force the player to into the story the DM wants, rather than what the player wants. That is not "protagonism" as the term is usually used, although I can see it could be a crime in cases.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As with most semantic arguments, probably not, though I have just tried to explain exactly how I understand the term. I believe the formal definition of the term involves giving players a guarantee that they will have both agency and be central to the story that they create.

I didn't know there was a formal definition of it. I just hate meta-gaming (as any good role-player should), and I've noticed that some particular GMs are fond of this sort of thing, and think that the rules against meta-gaming don't apply to them. Those GMs are the worst.

As for the sort of "mess with me" behavior you are describing, that's a very different issue than protagonism (or at least tangential to it) and it's much more of a subjective preference than a general sin.

Eh, it's still meta-gaming, which is objectively bad. Having the GM declare that the Big Bad was secretly your brother all along is no different than having a player declare it, from that perspective. You're changing how the world works, based on the meta-game fact that one particular character is a PC. Some people might be more okay with it than others. I'll admit that it's better than having nothing happen, but it's still entirely unnecessary.

I should also say that if a player creates as his backstory that he's the prophesied Chosen One, I'll almost certainly not approve the character in the game. But if the player leaves it open ended for me to fill in who he might be, then I'm much more likely to say, "You know, it actually might make a cool story if this character is a Chosen One of some sort.", and work that into the game.

That goes back to my other point, about enforcing preferential outcomes. It's not cool to treat the whole game world, in which we've all invested significant time and energy, as though it's some novel you're trying to publish. Things should happen because they are the logical course of events, given the forces in effect on the world, and the choices of everyone involved. Nothing should ever happen "because it makes for a good story". "Because it makes for a good story" is right up there next to "Because you're a PC" in terms of invalid world logic.

UPDATE: As a term, "Backstory abuse"? Referring to cases where the DM without the consent of the player alters the character of the PC the player is playing is based on filling in for the player an unwanted backstory, or adding unwanted backstory complications to force the player to into the story the DM wants, rather than what the player wants. That is not "protagonism" as the term is usually used, although I can see it could be a crime in cases.

That might be a better term for it. I'm not sure that it really covers everything I would want it to cover, because some GMs also like to use PC status as a guide for adjudicating "random" events in such a way to promote their preferred narrative. "Messing with you" is more to the point, but it's less concise.

 

[Celebrim]

I didn't know there was a formal definition of it.

Most of these terms are Forge speak, or at least coined by someone heavily influence by The Forge back in the early '2000s' and who have an interest in formalizing how we talk about games - such as The Alexandrian. I don't know who exactly coined this one, and I really wish someone would publish a dictionary. Of course, the problem with the dictionary is that I'm not sure anyone has the authority assert the 'true' definition, and there will always be quibbles over the term. So, if you use it slightly differently than how other people use it, you aren't any different than the rest of us.

I just hate meta-gaming (as any good role-player should)...

Yeah, we're going to end up in a debate about that. I don't consider meta-gaming a particularly bad sin, and at the least I don't consider it a correctable flaw. When it is a problem, the root cause isn't metagaming, but the motivation to metagame (which typically is a bad motivation whether you metagame or not). I consider it a sign of bad DMing that you'd always be complaining about the players metagaming. Of course they are. They exist outside of the game. How can they not metagame? Everything they choose to do would be metagaming? For example, a module can't be unread. A player that has already played a module or read a module can't be expected to not metagame, since regardless how he acts, he'll still be reacting to what he knows and remembers. The real flaw here is running an adventure for someone who has already seen the secret. You don't want the players to metagame? Don't let slip the secrets you as the secret keeper were charged with keeping. PC's cheating is a whole other issue, but metagaming itself I think misses the mark on what the problem is.

Eh, it's still meta-gaming, which is objectively bad. Having the GM declare that the Big Bad was secretly your brother all along is no different than having a player declare it, from that perspective.

I'm struggling with your definition of metagaming as well. While declaring the big bad is a family relative could be metagaming, it doesn't have to be, nor is it necessarily changing how the world actually was all along. I could have decided at the time that the character was introduced, that the PC's estranged brother would be exactly in the capacity of Lord Voldemort or Darth Vader. Or conversely, the PC's estranged brother could have become the Big Bad precisely because he was the PC's estranged brother in a game where before hand I had never designated an NPC to be the 'big bad', but instead the position evolved through the choices of play. The PC's estranged brother is the big bad because the PC's choose that character to be their foil through their interactions.

Metagaming has to do with making choices based on information that you as a participant in the game have, but which the characters in the game do not. An example of criminal DM metagaming would be raising the DC of locks in the dungeon because the player takes Skill Focus (Open Locks), selecting creatures that have Fire Resistance because one of the PC's is a pyromancer, or playing a supposedly 8 INT orc as a cunning genius that fully anticipates all the PC's abiliites and movements. 'Tucker's Kobolds' are something I associate with DM metagaming. "Luke, Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father..." isn't in my opinion Metagaming. It can be, and often is, simply good storytelling and most players I've run the game for want their characters to be special in the game world. You can usually tell when the player really does want their character to be an ordinary nobody who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and doesn't care about backstory and is only interested in forestory, and there is nothing wrong with that and I try to give that player what they want. But if at the same table, there is a player who leaves their parentage in doubt and hints around in the backstory about a mystery, then I feel like I'm not metagaming in the slightest if it turns out they are a kidnapped princess whom a witch swapped at birth with the current heir to the throne or something of that sort.

That goes back to my other point, about enforcing preferential outcomes. It's not cool to treat the whole game world, in which we've all invested significant time and energy, as though it's some novel you're trying to publish.

I can think of worse things. Though, I do get your point about "enforcing preferential outcomes". One of the worst things a DM can do is get addicted to imagining how future scenes will play out, particularly when it comes to how the players will react to those scenes (you can plot out how NPCs will react to potential moves by the PCs all you like) because really this is not something you have any control over. You can't even really select a Big Bad, or if you do, you should always be aware the NPC you selected will die in Act 1, Scene III, through some contrivance you didn't anticipate. This has to do with player agency: a player's choices should be meaningful. GMs have to be OK with letting the story happen as it is, and not just the way they want it.

Things should happen because they are the logical course of events, given the forces in effect on the world, and the choices of everyone involved.

Yes, but I'd argue that this is true for a novel as well! If things happen because you think "it makes for a good story" but they don't happen because they are the logical course of events, given the facts presented in the story and the choices of everyone involved, then it isn't a very good story whether it comes in the medium of a novel or an RPG session. I personally hate novels where characters jump through hoops of stupidity in order to hit a set of pre-determined plot points. Writing a novel that depends on a series of ludicrous ineptly presented forcing events that don't feel like they could reasonably happen, is bad writing just as much as running a game that way is bad GMing.

 

[dragoner]

Not being a native English speaker, I would go by the standard definition of Protagonist:

pro·tag·o·nist
[prōˈtaɡənəst, prəˈtaɡənəst]
NOUN

the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.

Which to me, I think the PC's would fit that definition.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Definitely. I will work with my players to come up with stuff they want to do. I will account for PC agency and just outright ask them “what do your characters want to do next?”

But there used to be this guy, who, even after all that, in mid-adventure, would decide his character wanted to go do something else. Harass people in a tavern, investigate the local cemetery, interrogate the local officials about their legal system. Why, one time, he even tried to walk away from the main quest of the entire campaign when there weren’t as many other players around to countermand him.

It’s all about grinding the game to a halt to focus on their character. The whole game has to stop while they go off and do their thing, or while the rest of the group has to convince them to go along with what everyone else already decided to do.

That particular player, for a number of reasons, is no longer someone I game with.

I've had people attempt this before, and it's generally followed by the following statement:
"Okay, your character wanders off to do something else, they're now no longer a member of the party, please roll up a new character who is party-oriented and interested in sticking with the group, otherwise you're also welcome to wander off and do something else."

99% of the time their character turns right around and rejoins the party. 1% of the time we end up with an open seat.

 

[Celebrim]

Not being a native English speaker, I would go by the standard definition of Protagonist:

pro·tag·o·nist
[prōˈtaɡənəst, prəˈtaɡənəst]
NOUN

the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.

Which to me, I think the PC's would fit that definition.

- emphasis added

The point of the term is that the player's characters should fit that definition. Protagonizing the PC's is considered normal and good. The DMing crime is normally to deprotagonize the PC's, so that they are no longer the major characters of the story being told in the game.

I just started the 'Skull & Shackles' adventure path last night (as a player for a change!) and one of the other players struggled for the first hour or two with the fact that the narrative harshly deprotagonizes the players in the first few scenes, robbing from them the agency that players normally expect to have. I was on board with it, but I understand (to some extent) his confusion at finding his position to be basically helpless and at the mercy of NPCs who are initially holding all the cards. Presumably, at some point we'll have the resources to avenge ourselves, but the game would be in my opinion dysfunctional if the point of robbing the PC's of their normal advantages was simply so that we could watch the NPCs be awesome all the way through to the end of the game. While that might be 'realistic' and 'believable' even in a fantasy world, it doesn't make for a good game. I'll also likely object if the handwaving that got us on this railroad isn't just merely to jump start the game, but continues to be just as heavy handed to get us to jump through the hoops. As an adventure path, I'm OK with it being on rails to a large extent, and having a very constrained narrow-broad-narrow structure, with gates between scenarios, but one hopes for artful gates that don't feel quite like straight jackets, where you go through them because it's what you want to do at the time.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yeah, we're going to end up in a debate about that.

Fortunately, we don't have to do that here, or now. I'm not the only one to bring up meta-gaming as an RPG crime, and you didn't object when I mentioned it originally. Let it suffice to say that some people find meta-gaming to be one of the biggest RPG crimes, and just move on for now.

I'm struggling with your definition of metagaming as well. While declaring the big bad is a family relative could be metagaming, it doesn't have to be, nor is it necessarily changing how the world actually was all along.

This is one definition that I know is well-accepted. When role-playing, meta-gaming is the act of having a character act on information that they don't (or can't) know. It can include knowing that trolls are weak to fire (if the character wouldn't otherwise know that), and it can include making an assumption that a puzzle is solvable because the GM presented it to you.

So the question is, why did this specific NPC make all of the necessary decisions that led them to become the preeminent villain of the setting? If the answer is "to provide a compelling foe for the PC" then that's meta-gaming. While it's possible to have their motivations be entirely in-character, and for that to be established before the GM ever finds out who the PC will be, it is nevertheless highly improbable. There are millions of people that could potentially rise to power in opposition of the Big Bad, and the likelihood of them being related is insignificant, unless the GM is arranging such things behind-the-scenes. (Note that you can raise the probability of such events significantly, if you let the players play nobility. If you're playing the Prince of England, then the likelihood that the mysterious villain is somehow related to you is actually pretty good.)

Yes, but I'd argue that this is true for a novel as well! If things happen because you think "it makes for a good story" but they don't happen because they are the logical course of events, given the facts presented in the story and the choices of everyone involved, then it isn't a very good story whether it comes in the medium of a novel or an RPG session.

That's a matter of causality, though. At least according to the writers I follow on Quora, they usually develop the outline of a story before they figure out the specifics. The ultimate resolution of the story is usually known, long before the writer knows how you get there. And hopefully they can connect the dots to make it seem like internal causality rather than plot device; but ultimately, the characters are just story elements devoid of free will, and their bottom line is already written.

That's not the case, for characters in an RPG. Their bottom line is not written yet. The choices they make - the choices that we imagine them to make, while we pretend to be them - actually matter, because their world is actually controlled by internal causality rather than plot contrivance.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Yeah, we're going to end up in a debate about that. I don't consider meta-gaming a particularly bad sin, and at the least I don't consider it a correctable flaw. When it is a problem, the root cause isn't metagaming, but the motivation to metagame (which typically is a bad motivation whether you metagame or not). I consider it a sign of bad DMing that you'd always be complaining about the players metagaming. Of course they are. They exist outside of the game. How can they not metagame? Everything they choose to do would be metagaming? For example, a module can't be unread. A player that has already played a module or read a module can't be expected to not metagame, since regardless how he acts, he'll still be reacting to what he knows and remembers. The real flaw here is running an adventure for someone who has already seen the secret. You don't want the players to metagame? Don't let slip the secrets you as the secret keeper were charged with keeping. PC's cheating is a whole other issue, but metagaming itself I think misses the mark on what the problem is.

To me metagaming is just the outcome of players playing a game and using what they know, assuming we are not talking about replaying a module. But even then what fun is replaying a module if its plot heavy and full of things that past knowledge make trivial? But anyway I hate it when a DM expects me to not use fire x number of times on the troll before I can 'stumble' across the real solution to the issue. I don't view my players as actors in a troupe so I don't get huffy when they don't try to hug the sphere of annihilation or they get the torches ready when there is obvious sign of troll.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not being a native English speaker, I would go by the standard definition of Protagonist:

pro·tag·o·nist
[prōˈtaɡənəst, prəˈtaɡənəst]
NOUN

the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.

Which to me, I think the PC's would fit that definition.

The question is, "Is an RPG like a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text"? I would strongly say that it is not. The key distinction is that all of those other things are just stories, while an RPG is supposed to represent a believable place. There is no "plot" in an RPG; there's just a bunch of stuff that happens.

 

[Gradine]

I mean, the very idea that there is are any universal or objective sins is asinine on its face; people play role-playing games for a vast number of reasons to achieve a diverse array of potential outcomes. Even the closest thing one could probably come to consensus, which I'd wager would be "cheating", is performed for a particular reason (failure is not always interesting or fun), from which the "yes, but" mechanic of many newer games was designed specifically around.

All that being actually said, I'm going to propose two sins that I believe are actually universal, and both are very interrelated.
Universal Sin Omega (Personal): Breaking the social contract
Universal Sin Alpha (Group): Not having a social contract

My personal games tend to focus more on the social and fun aspects of the experience and less on the nitty gritty of the rules, but then my players tend to be my friends who are new to the game and are fairly casual players. As a result my games tend to be focus on character interaction and storytelling, and I do a fair amount of hand-holding as a DM. An OSR gamer would flee from my table. Some clearly place a much greater emphasis on immersion and/or verisimilitude. I've played in games like that and I've had some great fun in them, but I wouldn't say that style of play caters to my strengths as a DM, and most of my players would be bored to tears within minutes.

Is everyone at your table having fun? Congratulations, you did the thing correctly! Does it matter how you got there? Not in the slightest! No sins have been committed.