In your RPGing, who chooses the antagonists/opposition - players or GM?

[Lanefan]

You forgot to Dissassociate this from the Force Deprotagonization Proviso.

This is Elitist Nerd Talk 101.

YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY SIR.

Wait a minute. There is no such thing as WIN-LOSE in RPGs, right?

Which means, the correct result is YOU FAIL. But - given the premise of fail-forward and the simulationist bent I'm tossing on to this gamist narrative - this is not the end.

Congratulations. You have just been enrolled in Elitist Nerd Talk 099.

Classes begin on Monday.

 

[DammitVictor]

Sometimes it's me, but most of the time it's the players-- I fill a world with people trying to do stuff and, well, the antagonists are the ones the PCs decide to screw with. But, sometimes, int he process of doing stuff, the NPCs designate themselves the antagonists.

 

[pemerton]

Sometimes it's me, but most of the time it's the players-- I fill a world with people trying to do stuff

So when you say its the players, do you mean they choose from possibilities that you present to them?

 

[darkbard]

I'll also tag @Manbearcat here.

What Manbearcat has described reads to me like orthodox PbtA or even BW-style work: the player has established a drive for his/her PC which is stated in somewhat abstract terms but has a lot of thematic "hook" written into it; the GM introduces NPCs and attendant situations which are loosely sketched at the start but are not obviously irrelevant to the player-authored "hook"; the player makes moves that relate to the "hook" in some way or other (eg use detect evil to force the GM to try and force the GM to make a more precise call about the relationship of the GM-introduced element to the "hook"); the GM uses the mechanically-structured and guided consequence narration to fill in those details, some of which involves bouncing off the players via questions and discussion.

Is that fair?

It's certainly an approach that I've used in BW, including the oft-retold story of the PC at the market acquiring a cursed angel feather.

I've been rather busy of late but don't want to leave this unattended, however brief my response.

Yes, you have identified the thrust of it. The player signals thematic interest, the GM presents loose possibilities for exploration, and the outcome of action declaration, question-and-answer process, and thematic flagging by all parties collaborate to move undefined characters into antagonist roles.

 

[DammitVictor]

So when you say its the players, do you mean they choose from possibilities that you present to them?

It's a matter of perspective. When it comes down to it, if they don't bite down on any of the options on the table, I will keep throwing options on the table until I find one they like. But hey... if it really comes down to it, and I've got a player or two or all of them saying they want to do something about this kind of threat that I hadn't really established as being a threat... well, it is now. Or it can be, at least.

The best part of Dungeons & Dragons is all the little surprises that unfold over the course of a long campaign. As the player putting in the most work, I wouldn't want to deny myself my own share in that experience.

 

[MGibster]

I find that sometimes my players turn a minor antagonist into something major. In my last campaign, I created a Dragonborn enemy for Baldur's Gate with delusions of grandeur expecting the PCs to defeat him the first or second time they encountered him. For whatever reason, they didn't fight him. And as his power base grew off the coast of Daggerford (he was living under the sea enslaving mer-people) they ignored him until I ended up making him the big bad evil guy for the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

as his power base grew off the coast of Daggerford (he was living under the sea enslaving mer-people)

Was this something that was taking place in play, or is this something that you as GM imagined happening "off screen"?

 

[MGibster]

Was this something that was taking place in play, or is this something that you as GM imagined happening "off screen"?

It took place in play. I'm the type of DM who knows exactly what the NPCs are going to do without interference from the PCs. Skorra (named after a shark from a Kids in the Hall sketch) was a lord from Waterdeep who got his hands on an artifact that could control a Kracken. His plan was to conquer the mer-people, enslave them, and use their home as his base of operations to wreak havoc on all sea trade along the Sword Coast with the goal of forcing all ships to pay him tribute to avoid being dragged to the briny depths.

Now this was an Acquisition Inc., game and the PCs were hired by a Beholder, Mr. Thrakozog, to go under the sea to recover the Cheese Wheel of Destiny, an 800 pound wheel of cheddar cheese that was to be presented by Xanathar in Waterdeep to the Drow to seal a deal. (Mr. Thrakozog disguised himself as a human by wearing a hat and a trench coat. Everyone except for the party's Monk saw through the disguise but said nothing because, you know, Beholder.) It was while on this recovery mission that the PCs discovered Skorra was able to control a Kracken and was enslaving the local mer-people population. When they encountered Skorra, while he was chasing down an escaped mermaid no less, they spoke with him and he was rather amiable. Despite the mermaid being visibly terrified of going back with him the PCs figured, "Eh, we were hired to take care of this" and let him go. They recovered the Cheese Wheel of Destiny and Mr. Thrakozog was a happy client.

Anyway, Skorra was a topic of interest in Daggerford for quiet a while. Some of the Lords of Waterdeep and the leadership from Baldur's Gate met in Daggerford to try to figure out what they might do about Skorra but they couldn't quite figure things out. The PCs were at that meeting but didn't make any suggestions themselves. Every once in a while I'd mention Skorra having sunk a ship and finally the merchants capitulated and started paying his tribute. I even had Skorra hire the PCs to recover an Apparatus of Kwalish which they did.

So I decided to make Skorra, who I honestly thought they'd defeat the first time they met, into the big bad evil villain. He ended up trying to summon an outer god and when PCs got wind of that plan they decided to do something about it.

 

[Emerikol]

I would say the GM just plays the NPCs/monsters as he has defined them in the setting. Then they become the PCs enemies because the PCs interact with them in some way. The decision to become an enemy though could go either way. The PCs could thwart some plan of an NPC and become that NPC's enemy. The NPC could do something the PCs oppose and become their enemy.

 

[kenada]

In your RPGing, who does all this (come up with the antagonists)? And how is it done?

As I discussed in the thread on notes, I’m running a sandbox game. The world is set up as a status quo. The antagonists result from the decisions the PCs make. If they go attack the ghouls, and Lady Ghast retaliates against them, that’s a consequence of their actions. This can get fuzzy when those consequences come from activities over time rather than a specific action (e.g., they build up their base, it annoys one of the factions in nearby Orctown, and conflict ensues), but I think it’s still generally in that same style (just less overt).

I wouldn’t say the players are the ones who make that determination. The NPCs and factions are things I established in the setting, so the authorial voice is mine. Given the conceit of my campaign (expedition sent out to explore an unknown land), there’s not a lot of space for characters to bring in aspects of their past lives. However, if someone in my group really wanted that as part of his concept, we could talk about it. I’d ask questions and probe them for details, but I think the conflict that ensued would still ultimately be based on things I devised.