What is the point of GM's notes?

[Imaro]

Monopoly does this, are you arguing that Monopoly features protagonism?

How?? What characters exist in Monopoly? There are playing pieces but there are no characters in Monopoly.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, yes. The same people who keep ignoring and pretending like we don’t have firsthand experience running and playing in these sort of games too.

I don't know you, so I don't know your ability to grasp what is happening with the method, or if you even really ran it. Your(your side in general) experiences don't really matter to me in this discussion. I do know my experience with the method. I don't "Play to find out what is in the DM's notes." and saying that it is, is a gross mischaracterization of what it is that I do. Others here are telling you the same thing.

It's almost as if you "keep ignoring and pretending like we don't have firsthand experience running and playing in these sorts of games..."

 

[Ovinomancer]

How?? What characters exist in Monopoly? There are playing pieces but there are no characters in Monopoly.

I'm perfectly free to put on a silly voice and affect a character while playing Monopoly and interact with other players doing the same. Just as much as I can treat Bob the Fighter, my PC, as a player piece. "Character" is doing a lot of work, here, perhaps you can explain what defines a character.

 

[Maxperson]

How?? What characters exist in Monopoly? There are playing pieces but there are no characters in Monopoly.

I don't know who you are responding to, but I can guess. Someone else tried the failed Monopoly argument earlier in the thread and I shot it down very quickly.

 

[Emerikol]

Yes, the protagonist is who the story is about. If I create a world that doesn't care about the PCs and then turn them loose in it to see what they uncover/do, is the story actually about those PCs? Play will focus on the PCs choices, sure, but the drama of the situation is rarely about the PCs. To use my session from last night, the PCs were raiding a dungeon under the home of a major NPC, all to discover what that NPC because they had been given a job to do just that. This will lead to further clues and directions on what the next steps in the mystery are. None of this is about the PCs -- none of it features anything that required any input from the PC or was designed with any given PC in mind. Yet, play is about the choices they make in navigating this situation. This isn't protagonism, because they aren't the main characters in this story, just the ones that feature in play (right now, if I kill one, they will be replaced), and what they're doing is reacting to the plans and plots of NPCs. This means this game is actually about those NPCs, and we're playing to see if the PCs foil their plans. The game isn't about the dramatic needs of the PCs.

To offer a different example, the first Infinity War movie in the Marvel oeuvre, Thanos is the protagonist, not the Avengers. Yet the Avengers are clearly major characters and demand the majority of the screen time.

Honestly and take this in the right spirit. You are using a word that doesn't mean what you think it means. I understand your idea and how it works. You call it protagonism. I get that. But protagonism in plain english does not mean what you think it means which is why everyone is opposing you. They aren't arguing the concept. They are arguing the term.

You said:
If I create a world that doesn't care about the PCs and then turn them loose in it to see what they uncover/do, is the story actually about those PCs?

My answer:
Absolutely it is about the PCs. Yes it is about the PCs. As you have reminded me so often, what happens off camera is not central to the players playing of their characters. The real action is with the group. They are absolutely protagonists in their story.

What you've done is add a bunch of qualifiers around protagonism that are not at all required. You needed a name for your game constructs and chose protagonism. Fine. Just realize that the raw meaning of the word is absolutely not the definition of that game construct. If it's gamer speak shorthand that is fine but realize you may need to explain yourself. You redefine a word and then get upset everyone balks at it. You don't get to redefine english.

At this point if you disagree I don't see much further point to continuing the discussion. We just don't agree with you. So your use of that word is a stumbling block to the discussion that could be had about your actual style versus word definitions.

 

[Fenris-77]

Monopoly does this, are you arguing that Monopoly features protagonism?

Monopoly most certainly does not. I was using conversation there in the way, say, Vincent Baker does in discussing "what is an RPG" at the beginning of Apocalypse World. Action - adjudication - consequence. Even if I weren't tired of facetious arguments about Monopoly or the like being an RPG, it's quite obviously missing the middle bit, so let's not go there. Nor does it have what would commonly be described as a game world. Anyway, These are all things you already know. I guess the friendly question is what exactly are you trying to prove here?

You definition of protagonist above seems limited to a single character, which I find at odds with the normal usage of the word, which can usaully apply to more than one character in a single text. Perhaps there's something I'm missing about your specific usage though. Additionally, my short definition of protagonism would be the state, character or activity of a protagonist. One, is that the definition you're using, and two, what are the stakes of using that instead of just talking about protagonists?

 

[Emerikol]

Monopoly does this, are you arguing that Monopoly features protagonism?

No it doesn't. I can't drive my monopoly car anywhere I want. It's a highly restricted mode board game and in no way resembles the freedom in an rpg. You see being able to do whatever we want as our characters seems to us to be a great amount of control. To you it seems restrictive. I get that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why should he when you've yet to prove that the first is literal? None of us contesting this with you "Play to discover what is in the DM's notes." If you say it's literal, then it's literally wrong.

So I think that part of the problem is that any counter to "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" as @pemerton has described it, that has been offered relies on non-literal wording. Now, whether I agree with @pemerton's idea or not, I clearly understand what it is that he is saying.

What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this?

"Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism.

What other actual practices do you use/follow/apply to achieve protagonism?

 

[Imaro]

I'm perfectly free to put on a silly voice and affect a character while playing Monopoly and interact with other players doing the same. Just as much as I can treat Bob the Fighter, my PC, as a player piece. "Character" is doing a lot of work, here, perhaps you can explain what defines a character.

You claimed the game of Monopoly did this... This is not part of the rules of Monopoly. Are we really at the point where pure fabrications are being used to defend positions?

 

[Maxperson]

So I think that part of the problem is that any counter to "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes" as @pemerton has described it, that has been offered relies on non-literal wording. Now, whether I agree with @pemerton's idea or not, I clearly understand what it is that he is saying.

What do you literally do as a GM to foster protagonism? How do your notes help or hinder this?

"Exploring a living world" is an example of what I'd like to see people avoid. I'd rather hear about something concrete like "I involve the players in the creation of the setting" as this is a literal thing that a GM can do, and it may enhance protagonism.

What other actual practices do you use/follow/apply to achieve protagonism?

If he wants to re-state his theory in a way that doesn't misrepresent what it is that we do and isn't pejorative, then I'll be happy to examine it. As it is stated, though, it doesn't at all represent the purpose or focus of our play. Words matter, as @pemerton well knows, since he's quick to remind us of his authority in the area. If he wanted to foster a real discussion, instead coming across yet again as poopooing on this particular playstyle, he could have done so.