Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Wicht]

I believe he's talking about who the players view as antagonists, not who the DM chooses to introduce into the game. For instance at character creation the Ranger chooses his "favored enemy" which indicates, to a pretty large extent that any creature of that sort will be viewed as an antagonist (although the actual antagonist title may be reserved for the biggest bad of the selected creature type). The DM certainly does create and introduce the monsters, but that's different than creating antagonists. I've had plenty of players ignore Big Bads and the like who were introduced as potential antagonists for the players. They have done the same to helpful NPCs. The DM can only introduce creatures, not whether those creatures are antagonists. Hopefully the DM and players are in sync enough that the DM is only introducing potential antagonists that will be viewed the same way by the PCs. Ideally anyway. The question is though, where's it written who gets to label the creature an antagonist? Who gets to say, this creature has meaning beyond the simple encounter? Even if the DM continually reintroduces the same creature, that doesn't mean the players will respond or even particularly care about that creature (thus elevating it to the status of antagonist). Is that the DM failing or the players not playing right, according the rules? I have no idea, but I think that's what he's talking about.

An antagonist is someone threating, or acting against the interest of the PCs. If the PCs want to antagonize the king, then I guess they can choose to act as if a protagonist was against them.

And if they choose to think the wolf eating their faces is a friend, then I can't help them.

But the DM is under no obligation to make a character friendly if he does not want to. He gets the final say in who is actually acting against the PCs, regardless of their perception.

 

[Wicht]

I don't believe he's talking about challenges. He's talking about antagonists. Those creatures that are elevated beyond the simple threat.

I don't see the difference. You can have minor antagonists and major antagonists but they are all, in their own way, antagonists and the DM places them.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I don't see the difference. You can have minor antagonists and major antagonists but they are all, in their own way, antagonists and the DM places them.

Shea is using "antagonist" to mean exactly what his second sentence there says: Those creatures that are elevated beyond the simple threat. Clearly you do not agree with that use of the term that way.

The question is: Does that difference of perception mean someone is wrong? Granted, this is technically ignoring one os the dictionary definitions of antagonist which says that any opponent is an antagonist in that situation, so a follow up question to be asked is "Is it wrong for different people to define this term differently?" Note the second definition there says "2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama."

How about coming to a consensus about which terms mean what? Or at least recognizing that someone is defining something differently and either accepting that to roll with it, or asking to clarify instead of, ahem, antagonizing them?

 

[sheadunne]

Shea is using "antagonist" to mean exactly what his second sentence there says: Those creatures that are elevated beyond the simple threat. Clearly you do not agree with that use of the term that way.

The question is: Does that difference of perception mean someone is wrong? Granted, this is technically ignoring one os the dictionary definitions of antagonist which says that any opponent is an antagonist in that situation, so a follow up question to be asked is "Is it wrong for different people to define this term differently?" Note the second definition there says "2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama."

How about coming to a consensus about which terms mean what? Or at least recognizing that someone is defining something differently and either accepting that to roll with it, or asking to clarify instead of, ahem, antagonizing them?

I was using it in terms of fiction or story creation.

The antagonist in a work of fiction is the character who opposes the hero, or protagonist. The antagonist, when there is one, provides the story's conflict.

I wouldn't call orcs protagnoists, but I would call the orc king a protagnoist. At least the way I understand how it's used in fiction.

But yeah, definitions can be important. I'm not pushing an agenda here, just trying to get at what I think was being said. Could be wrong. All is well.

 

[Wicht]

Shea is using "antagonist" to mean exactly what his second sentence there says: Those creatures that are elevated beyond the simple threat. Clearly you do not agree with that use of the term that way.

The question is: Does that difference of perception mean someone is wrong? Granted, this is technically ignoring one os the dictionary definitions of antagonist which says that any opponent is an antagonist in that situation, so a follow up question to be asked is "Is it wrong for different people to define this term differently?" Note the second definition there says "2. The principal character in opposition to the protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama."

Even if we agree not to use antagonist in the most normal of ways, and even if we only use the term to only mean principle antagonists, the DM still makes the call. The players do not get to decide who the big bad is. They can decide who they are angry with, and who they want to fight, but the DM has total control over whether such conflicts happen and whether they are indeed challenges. So I still don't see the difference. The game is designed around the DM placing challenges, big and small.

 

[Wicht]

I was using it in terms of fiction or story creation.

The antagonist in a work of fiction is the character who opposes the hero, or protagonist. The antagonist, when there is one, provides the story's conflict.

I wouldn't call orcs protagnoists, but I would call the orc king a protagnoist. At least the way I understand how it's used in fiction.

But yeah, definitions can be important. I'm not pushing an agenda here, just trying to get at what I think was being said. Could be wrong. All is well.

Even in fiction the orcs are defined as antagonists, they are just minor antagonist. Anyone who opposes the protagonist, thus creating conflict serves as an antagonist no matter how minor the conflict. At least that was what I was always taught. Maybe story-conflict is taught different nowadays so that only major conflict truly counts.

 

[sheadunne]

Even in fiction the orcs are defined as antagonists, they are just minor antagonist. Anyone who opposes the protagonist, thus creating conflict serves as an antagonist no matter how minor the conflict. At least that was what I was always taught. Maybe story-conflict is taught different nowadays so that only major conflict truly counts.

Wouldn't know about that. I can only use the term to mean what I think it means and how I've used it and seen it used. However, that doesn't really change the question, so much as define it. Who gets to choose who the characters view as the primary adversary, the one that is beyond a simple conflict, that represents the opposite of them as heroes? And is it included in either the PHB, DMG, MM, somewhere? I think others have mentioned that others games explicitly indicate who chooses the antagonist. I have always assumed in D&D that it was the DM, but don't really know if that's provided by the rules or simply me wanting to take that on as a DM.

 

[Wicht]

Who gets to choose who the characters view as the primary adversary, the one that is beyond a simple conflict, that represents the opposite of them as heroes?

The DM gets to choose.

And is it included in either the PHB, DMG, MM, somewhere? I think others have mentioned that others games explicitly indicate who chooses the antagonist. I have always assumed in D&D that it was the DM, but don't really know if that's provided by the rules or simply me wanting to take that on as a DM.

I provide a relevant quote from the Pathfinder Core rules above.

The DM chooses all challenges or threats. In and so far as the principle protagonist is one of these threats, the rules specify that it is the DM that chooses who the principle protagonist is going to be.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Even in fiction the orcs are defined as antagonists, they are just minor antagonist. Anyone who opposes the protagonist, thus creating conflict serves as an antagonist no matter how minor the conflict. At least that was what I was always taught. Maybe story-conflict is taught different nowadays so that only major conflict truly counts.

What you were taught is one thing. What someone else was taught or otherwise thinks is another. How things actually are might be yet another thing, and that can change with the people in this case. If you can't reconcile the different "thruths" of different people then you're not likely to get very far. As the link I provided shows, the first definition of antagonist is simply any opponent. The second, however, defines it as a principal character opposed to the protagonist or hero. You (and others) might be using the first definition, but Shae and others are using the second. I'm with the second camp in there since I don't subscribe to the idea of giving just any opponent the gravity of the title of "antagonist." In cases where there are mutually exclusive definitions being used, someone has to be flexible enough to agree to use the definition of another at least for a little while so that they might frame their thoughts in a way the other side can understand better for the sake of communicating effectively.

I would argue the game is designed around not only the DM placing challenges, but also (among other things) around the PCs interacting with those challenges. There is typically an assumption that the DM merely placing opponents means the players should interact with them, but giving the PCs control over themselves means that they might choose not to interact with the opponents at all. Granted, this can be a douchebag move on the players' part since the DM has likely put a lot of effort and thought into those opponents, but it is still a possibility. There is a whole range of possibilities between ignoring the opponent outright or making the opponent one's nemesis for the entire game. I think the game is not wholly about the players or the DM; it is about both since neither can exist without the other. How much control one side gives to the other is perhaps another question.

 

[Wicht]

What you were taught is one thing. What someone else was taught or otherwise thinks is another. How things actually are might be yet another thing, and that can change with the people in this case. If you can't reconcile the different "thruths" of different people then you're not likely to get very far.

Um, I think I said it didn't matter to the argument at hand, the DM still chooses in either case.

I would argue the game is designed around not only the DM placing challenges, but also (among other things) around the PCs interacting with those challenges. There is typically an assumption that the DM merely placing opponents means the players should interact with them, but giving the PCs control over themselves means that they might choose not to interact with the opponents at all. Granted, this can be a douchebag move on the players' part since the DM has likely put a lot of effort and thought into those opponents, but it is still a possibility. There is a whole range of possibilities between ignoring the opponent outright or making the opponent one's nemesis for the entire game. I think the game is not wholly about the players or the DM; it is about both since neither can exist without the other.

Well of course the players have to choose how to react. And their action, reaction, or lack thereof helps drive the game. But the players never get to choose what is threatening them. They only get to choose whether to respond or not.

To the question at hand, the DM always chooses the antagonists, small, large and in-between. He chooses what threatens the players and what does not. And if players have not grasped this central element of the game, they are missing something rather fundamental to the game. I am actually a little surprised its even a matter of debate.