Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8648888" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is true in the typical RPG fiction to: the character doesn't control what exists in the reality external to them.The question at issue, though, is in the context of a RPG who authors what bits of the fiction?In the case of the documents in the safe (or the secret door), there are at least two aspects of authorship at issue:(1) Who decides whether or not this moment of play has the potential to resolve the question Do we - the PCs - get the incriminating information we are looking for?(2) To the extent that (1) depends on some decisions about content/backstory (ie what documents are in which safes), who gets to decide that?Reflecting on the sorts of influence a person can exert over the world they live in won't, of itself, answer either (1) or (2).Edwards <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">says the following</a>, in the course of trying to explain what is distinctive about protagonism in story now RPGing:the character's predicament is how Premise is seen/felt in full, and what he does, and what happens is how a theme is realized. . . . Bangs are not represented by many of the fight scenes or clues in traditional role-playing. Throwing mad hyenas at the player-characters is not a Bang if the only result of the fight is to wander into the next room. Nor is a clue a Bang at all if all it does is show where the next clue may be found. A real Bang gives the player options and requires his or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops the player-character as a hero.So in any given moment of play, either the following elements are present, or they are not:* The situation in which the PC finds themself is one in which "premise"/"theme" is present/expressed; * The player is making a decision for their PC; * The outcome of that decision will in some sense resolve or realise or express something about the premise/theme that is reflective of what the player has brought to the situation.In the context of the current discussion, the most obvious way in which a player may lack protagonism is if the player doesn't know what is at stake - for instance, doesn't know why the GM is calling for a roll to be made.Information being hidden from a player is, in itself, no bar to protagonism. Consider the example of the masked villain: the player doesn't know who the villain is, but exercises protagonism in seeking to unmask them. But information being hidden from a player is the most common way to hide what is at stake from the player, and that is definitely at odds with the exercise of protagonism.Players don't need to exercise fiat to exercise protagonism beyond (i) establishing their own orientation towards premise/theme, and (ii) declaring actions for their PCs. Look at Apocalypse World, for example - it uses a range of devices to ensure that the GM's exercise of situational and content authority does not impede player protagonism, the most obvious two being (i) the use of questions whose answers are binding on the GM, and (ii) the strong teeth of the player-side moves Go Aggro, Seduce/Manipulate and Seize by Force.</blockquote>

Verification