D&D is its own Genre of Fantasy?

[Wulf Ratbane]

A strict Classical definition of "protagonist" only matters if we're talking about ancient Greek drama.

If we're talking classical narrative structure, it presumes the classical definition of protagonist.

You say "ancient Greek drama" like a slur. If there's a better source for narrative structure than Aristotle, modern scholars have yet to find it.

A little surfing will show that "protagonists" has been commonly used to refer to the main characters in a given work since as early as 1671.

I'm not chasing that down. Feel free to source it if you really think the point is worth debating. I don't. You're not seriously arguing that all of the main characters in a work are protagonists. You can't be. Who the is the antagonist, then?

I don't see any reason that because D&D focuses on a team it requires that any fiction spawned from it suck.

I believe my first post was agnostic on the exact amount of suckage except to say, again: The more similar to a D&D game, the farther you will deviate from classical narrative structure, the more likely it will suck, and (in my opinion) the more it will suck, period.

The reason it sucks is because classical narrative structure is what we are pre-configured to appreciate.

NO-- It's not the only way stories can be told.

It is simply the most natural, the most resonant. No matter how good the author, that which does not resonate leaves you with that nagging feeling that... "Something about that story sucked."

It's easy to deviate from classical structure. Authors do it all the time. And these stories are typically rejected because... they suck.

They don't suck because they deviated, but because it is hard to deviate and do it well.

Obviously, there's good fantasy out there. Some of it, perhaps, is close to your D&D experiences. But it's no huge friggin mystery why there isn't more good D&D fantasy.

If that's not the predicate of this thread, I apologize for the threadjack.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think your strict Classical definition is equally out of place in talking about the fiction relevant to this thread, much less fiction written in the last 100 years.

It's absolutely relevant, because all of the players in a D&D game want to feel that they are the protagonist (just as we all, as human beings, feel that we are the protagonists in our own lives-- hence the resonance of particular narrative structures).

I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that either Fafhrd or Grey Mouser is a protagonist and the other not.

I wouldn't try.

But I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if the Mouser unexpectedly died in the middle of the adventure and was suddenly replaced with Conan, who fell in seamlessly with Fafhrd, and then in the next chapter Fafhrd died, to be inexplicably replaced with Gimli, and then Conan and Gimli went on to finish the adventure and faced down Death in the Shadowlands.

I might find that story somewhat unsatisfying. I might be left with the nagging feeling that something about that story sucked.

Guys, it's this simple: happens in D&D all the time that we accept in a game, but would never accept in a story.

 

[Umbran]

Other than continuing to conflate "character" with "protagonist," you got my point.

Well, clearly I failed to make my point, because I am not conflating them. I'm saying you're wrong on your analyses of the various bodies of work.

In the classical form, the protagonist is a central figure, whose journey and growth we are supposed to watch. Turning it around, if the author puts change and growth into a character, that character is a protagonist.

Ergo, if you want to find the protagonist(s), find the ones who change and grow over the course of the story. Who has the viewpoint, and who is "heroic" is somewhat aside the point.

Mal is not the only character in Firefly that has a personal journey that matters. Ergo, he's not the sole protagonist. Luke is likewise not the only protagonist in Star Wars - Han goes through a similar journey. In each of the various Trek series, you are intended to be interested in the personal journeys of multiple characters. So, in each case, there are multiple protagonists.

Now, I agree that having multiples makes it more difficult. However, I think you overstate how much we depend on the classical single protagonist for quality, and I think you miss how having multiples is actually pretty essential for longer stories.

 

[Cam Banks]

Clearly, D&D and D&D-related fiction occupies a post-structuralist niche in the world of storytelling. Take that, Joe Campbell! Etc etc etc.

I actually love the heroic journey stuff as used in gaming. I'm especially fond of Wulf's recent Mythic Heroes PDF, which I plan on using in my next campaign. I do refute the claim that there's a universal structure implicit in all good stories, however, regardless of how cool an idea it is.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[BryonD]

Mal is not the only character in Firefly that has a personal journey that matters. Ergo, he's not the sole protagonist. Luke is likewise not the only protagonist in Star Wars - Han goes through a similar journey. In each of the various Trek series, you are intended to be interested in the personal journeys of multiple characters. So, in each case, there are multiple protagonists.

But there is virtually (if at all) never a time when the characters in any of these are on screen together and both serving the role of main character at the same time. Having the character simply chnage and grow as the story moves is not the end all of the difference.

Han is a hero when Luke is not around and a foil when Luke is there. And just as having Luke get killed only to be replaced by some other Jedi or completely different character who smoothly takes over Luke's role would be a jarring thing that happens all the time in a game, having a major character go off screen for an extended time is completely normal in fiction but isn't typical for gaming.

Zander was the hero in The Zeppo, but if it were a game he'd expect to be on par with Buffy on a nearly continous basis.

Several other good points of difference have been listed. Playing dodge ball around the absolute defintion of protagonist really doesn't change the point.

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

I'm not chasing that down. Feel free to source it if you really think the point is worth debating. I don't. You're not seriously arguing that all of the main characters in a work are protagonists. You can't be. Who the is the antagonist, then?

My guess is he's talking about this: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protagonist

Usage Note: The protagonist of a Greek drama was its leading actor; therefore, there could be only one in a play. The question for speakers of modern English is whether a drama can have more than one protagonist. When members of the Usage Panel were asked "How many protagonists are there in Othello?" the great majority answered "One" and offered substitutes such as antagonist, villain, principal, and deuteragonist to describe Desdemona and Iago. Nevertheless, the word has been used in the plural to mean "important actors" or "principal characters" since at least 1671 when John Dryden wrote "Tis charg'd upon me that I make debauch'd persons ... my protagonists, or the chief persons of the drama." Some writers may prefer to confine their use of protagonist to refer to a single actor or chief participant, but it is pointless to insist that the broader use is wrong. · The use of protagonist to refer to a proponent has become common only in the 20th century and may have been influenced by a misconception that the first syllable of the word represents the prefix pro-, "favoring." In sentences such as He was an early protagonist of nuclear power, this use is likely to strike many readers as an error and can usually be replaced by advocate or proponent.

Apparently "protagonist" once meant the most important character but has come to mean the main characters more generally, though there's some fighting about it.

The reason it sucks is because classical narrative structure is what we are pre-configured to appreciate.

NO-- It's not the only way stories can be told.

It is simply the most natural, the most resonant. No matter how good the author, that which does not resonate leaves you with that nagging feeling that... "Something about that story sucked."

This is a pretty big claim. I mean, it suggests some ideas about cognition, evolutionary psychology and the like that, while possible, would certainly surprise me, and I doubt would be generally accepted without significant evidence. Frankly, and I don't mean this to be insulting, it sounds like reading too much into the already questionable ideas of Joseph Campbell.


Anyway, for all that, I don't disagree that a straight out transcript of a D&D game, or indeed any other RPG would not make for a good story as a novel or film or whatever. That would be true even in games that can be played effectively with only one PC or which do not feature character death, too.

 

[S'mon]

Zander was the hero in The Zeppo, but if it were a game he'd expect to be on par with Buffy on a nearly continous basis.

Several other good points of difference have been listed. Playing dodge ball around the absolute defintion of protagonist really doesn't change the point.

Yeah, I agree - I think Wulf pretty much has the right of it.

I've encountered some problems re protagonism in my D&D PBEM, which is more of a halfway house between literature and game than it is a regular D&D game. I find what I tend to do is have PC X as protagonist for a time, then switch to PC Y, just as ensemble shows like Star Trek or Buffy might do it. Obviously this is problematic for players in that when their PC isn't the protagonist they get less screen time, but it's workable in a pbem in a way it wouldn't be in a tabletop game; just as (the point Wulf makes) the tabletop conventions don't work well in a novel.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's a pretty big claim.

I didn't wake up today and decide to define "classical structure."

Is it just a big claim because it's coming from some schmuck on an internet forum?

Frankly, and I don't mean this to be insulting, it sounds like reading too much into the already questionable ideas of Joseph Campbell.

Not directly, although it's certainly possible that whomever I picked it up from nicked it from Campbell.

If I had to venture a guess-- and I've done a lot of reading lately, so it is a pretty wide net I'm casting-- I'd blame Robert McKee.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Yeah, I agree - I think Wulf pretty much has the right of it.

I've encountered some problems re protagonism in my D&D PBEM, which is more of a halfway house between literature and game than it is a regular D&D game. I find what I tend to do is have PC X as protagonist for a time, then switch to PC Y, just as ensemble shows like Star Trek or Buffy might do it. Obviously this is problematic for players in that when their PC isn't the protagonist they get less screen time, but it's workable in a pbem in a way it wouldn't be in a tabletop game; just as (the point Wulf makes) the tabletop conventions don't work well in a novel.

This illustrates the major difference between fiction and gaming plots: In writing fiction, you take the players out of the equation, and put complete control of the DM/author.

A novel doesn't need to be bound by the strictures of gaming: With no players, it's less likely someone will complain if their character doesn't get to do much at a particular junction in the story. The author has complete control, and can get the characters to agree to do something even if players, in the same situation, might refuse.

I can certainly understand Wulf's points about D&D game fiction sucking (and, let's be honest, a lot of it does), but again, with no players, the author doesn't have to answer to anyone but him or herself, and his or her readers. If I want a stripped-down setting where advancement is slow and magic items are hard to find and even harder to make, I can have it without players complaining about slow advancement or a lack of rewards. I don't have to incorporate all sorts of superhero-type powers and abilities if I don't want, nor do I have to risk breakdowns between what I as DM might think is socially acceptable, and what players do not-for me, it is perfectly acceptable for LG paladins to slaughter humanoid noncombatants...after all, they're just orcs and goblins, right? They don't deserve the same kind of consideration humans or elves do.

In short, the plot and structure can be shaped by the needs of the novel, not of the game. In this way, authors have a freedom that DMs do not. As such, a lot of the pitfalls of converting campaigns to novels can be dodged altogether.

Truth be told, I actually like things better with an ensemble cast where everyone gets some screentime and gets to do something significant: One of my main criticisms of Weis and Hickman's Dragonlance Chronicles, for example, is that Riverwind, Goldmoon and Flint never really got to contribute in any significant way, or even get a lot of emphasis in the spotlight: Weis and Hickman never gave them a chance to "save the day", so to speak, when they didn't write them out of the storyline altogether.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Multiple, equal protagonists = trouble. Characters who are fully invested in the story, suddenly disappearing = trouble. Replacing those characters = trouble.

Superhero team comics and soap opera. The latter is the most popular narrative form in the world today.