Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[billd91]

Some people would rather play Eddard Stark than Rand al'Thor. As always, play what you like

But... Edd Stark was one of the protagonists in Game of Thrones. Clearly the readers are meant to identify with him and he's a main focal character. Each book has multiple protagonists and some drift in and out of that role. I don't see how wanting to play the Edds of the world prevent the PCs from being protagonists while they are actively in the game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But... Edd Stark was one of the protagonists in Game of Thrones. Clearly the readers are meant to identify with him and he's a main focal character. Each book has multiple protagonists and some drift in and out of that role. I don't see how wanting to play the Edds of the world prevent the PCs from being protagonists while they are actively in the game.

Context of "protagonist" in both my post and the posts I was responding to seemed to speak more towards "plot protection" for the characters rather than "the guy you're rooting for" (which is normally the way protagonist is used). I was speaking within that context. Obviously, Eddard Stark was indeed a protagonist. I hope that my point was clear, though (or, that it is now). As always, play what you like

 

[Sunseeker]

Context of "protagonist" in both my post and the posts I was responding to seemed to speak more towards "plot protection" for the characters rather than "the guy you're rooting for" (which is normally the way protagonist is used). I was speaking within that context. Obviously, Eddard Stark was indeed a protagonist. I hope that my point was clear, though (or, that it is now). As always, play what you like

Players should be whatever is fitting to the game. If that means having a protective bubble around them, I'm sure there are other reasons to be engaged by the game besides the threat of death. If it means they're antagonists, or jut random adventurers, I'm sure the campaign will be appropriately tailored to it.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Players should be whatever is fitting to the game. If that means having a protective bubble around them, I'm sure there are other reasons to be engaged by the game besides the threat of death. If it means they're antagonists, or jut random adventurers, I'm sure the campaign will be appropriately tailored to it.

Hopefully that's easily achievable in the game

 

[pemerton]

I really dislike the idea of the PCs as protagonists being the assumption. If it is assumed, you get PC/NPC disparity (what my players and I might call "inconsistencies") within the mechanics.

I don't think this is true, though. In Basic D&D there is no strong PC/NPC differential in character building but, as per my quotes above, the PCs are protagonists.

In AD&D there is some differential (see eg the table for NPC stat requirements in the DMG, which makes NPCs different in their requirements from PCs) but it's pretty minimal. And in AD&D, the PCs are (or at least are presented by the PHB as) protagonists.

And to take a more clearcut case, Burning Wheel does not distinguish between PC and NPCs in its build rules, yet PCs in that game are quite overtly protagonists.

It seems to me that the main indicator of PC protagonism in an RPG isn't the character build mechanics, but the encounter/world build rules/guidelines. Is the world built for the PCs to explore? Is the heroic quest one that th PCs must undertake. Are the enemy cultists opposed to the PC cleric's god? Did the NPC villain, before s/he rose to current heights of ignominy, kill the PC's parents?

It seems to me that PC protagonism is as old (or nearly as old) as RPGing itself.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think this is true, though.

My players do. From experience. Sorry your views differ, but I'm not really going to be swayed on this front. Too much personal experience tells me otherwise.

And to take a more clearcut case, Burning Wheel does not distinguish between PC and NPCs in its build rules, yet PCs in that game are quite overtly protagonists.

You're speaking of "build" and I'm speaking of "disparity." Since the PCs are protagonists, they are afforded luxuries that NPCs don't have, whether this takes the form of fate points or something subtler (like social skills being able to be rolled against NPCs but not PCs), the base assumption of the PCs succeeding at mundane tasks relatively easily ("Say Yes"), and the like.

It seems to me that the main indicator of PC protagonism in an RPG isn't the character build mechanics, but the encounter/world build rules/guidelines.

It seems to me that PC protagonism is as old (or nearly as old) as RPGing itself.

These are all factors as well. Was the game built for special PCs? Are they assumed awesome and the best, and the rules reflect that? Are there exceptions to the PCs that are not made to NPCs? Do the PCs have privileges that NPCs do not, such as Fate Points, social skills, the "Rule of Cool", or the "Say Yes" mantra behind them that gets them a good amount of mundane stuff without much hassle (that many NPC peasants might love to have behind them)?

While many of these mechanics are meta in nature, they no doubt affect the PCs. Since "the PCs are protagonists" is a metagame statement, that's no surprise. However, the mechanical implementation that is then inserted into the game to make this statement realized certainly affects the PCs (even if it's at a metagame level). Thus the PC/NPC disparity I mentioned earlier, and the "inconsistency" that my players see in the game.

Again, it's just taste. But, as it is taste, I was saying I'd rather the "PCs as protagonists" mechanics be easily added or subtracted, rather than baked in. Something like Fate Points accomplishes this goal well, as you can just turn the system on or off. "Now we get plot protection! Now we don't!" Easy as a lightswitch.

However, something like social skills only working on NPCs but not PCs is baked deeper into the system. Sure, you can easily change that, too, but this is usually just a piece you're picking out. That is, there's going to be small changes all over the system that needs to be made in order to get rid of the assumption. Thus the statement of mine that you quoted:

I really dislike the idea of the PCs as protagonists being the assumption. If it is assumed, you get PC/NPC disparity (what my players and I might call "inconsistencies") within the mechanics.

I feel that if the assumption is that PCs are protagonists from the get-go, it's usually baked into the game, rather than layered on. I'd rather something be layered on and easily removed than picked out piece by piece. That's all I was saying there, really. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Was the game built for special PCs? Are they assumed awesome and the best, and the rules reflect that? Are there exceptions to the PCs that are not made to NPCs? Do the PCs have privileges that NPCs do not, such as Fate Points, social skills, the "Rule of Cool", or the "Say Yes" mantra behind them that gets them a good amount of mundane stuff without much hassle (that many NPC peasants might love to have behind them)?

<snip>

the mechanical implementation that is then inserted into the game to make this statement realized certainly affects the PCs (even if it's at a metagame level). Thus the PC/NPC disparity I mentioned earlier, and the "inconsistency" that my players see in the game.

<snip>

I feel that if the assumption is that PCs are protagonists from the get-go, it's usually baked into the game

The original Ravenloft module posits the PCs as protagonists - they get their fortunes told by the Vistani fortune teller, and Strahd - the villain of the piece - is out to defeat them.

But the mechanics are still just the regular AD&D mechanics, which don't distinguish between PCs and NPCs in resolution.

the base assumption of the PCs succeeding at mundane tasks relatively easily ("Say Yes")

Now you've lost me. To the extent that it makes sense to talk about it, the NPCs of the world live almost entirely in a "say yes" world, given that no one rolls dice for most of their actions.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But the mechanics are still just the regular AD&D mechanics, which don't distinguish between PCs and NPCs in resolution.

Including the acquisition of special abilities, magic, and the like?

Now you've lost me. To the extent that it makes sense to talk about it, the NPCs of the world live almost entirely in a "say yes" world, given that no one rolls dice for most of their actions.

But they don't get as much of a benefit for it. Players are constantly reinforced and supported by that mantra, and their PCs prosper for it. Not quite the same for peasants, who the GM effectively "Says Yes" to when it comes to peasantry, and nothing else. By assuming the PCs are better, and that they deserve better (without rolls or capabilities), they benefit more from this mantra than NPCs do (the majority of the time). As always, play what you like