The thing you quote is the opposite of protagonism, at least as we've been using the term here.
Hmmm...alirght, lets take a look. Without the rest of the systems being involved, therefore the purchase of their context, I would think you would probably evaluate 4e as the same then. Here is what I take from that (again without even comparing it to the rest of the GMing advice and what the system pushes play towards).
As it says, the GM portrays the fantastic world: check - it's the GM's job to create a world where exciting things can happen, and play the NPCs therein.
Now this is interesting and I think we get to a core element here. Sort of a Rorschach test. Remember above where you said that you presumed that conflict resolution mechanics of AD&D were about pre-play worldbuilding rather than in-situ generation of content and resolution of action declarations (is there a natural shelter here?...well, the players have declared that they are looking for one, let us take 3 turns of exploration, roll random encounters, and find out...). You're doing the same thing here when you turn
portray into
pre-play, high-res, world-building (the kind that only AD&D2e and 3.x advocate for). They are not the same things. Again, even without the advantage of the rest of the system and GMing advice (which involves
low prep - make a map and leave plenty of blanks - whereby the only thing consequentially fleshed out are the things guaranteed to be onscreen; eg the PCs'
antagonists), we know that portray is solely about the depiction of something, to someone, right now. It is agnostic on whether something is wholly, mostly, partially, or barely improvised. It doesn't carry with it the loaded connotation that the GM has created a high resolution setting before play and isn't improvising new content when responding to play demands at the table.
Now real quick. Lets take a look at the paragraph directly above the ones I quoted you:
Dungeon World
Ch 13 The GM; Gamesmastering p 159
* Portray a fantastic world
* Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
* Play to find out what happens
Everything you say and do at the table (and away from the table, too) exists to accomplish these three goals and no others. Things that aren’t on this list aren’t your goals. You’re not trying to beat the players or test their ability to solve complex traps. You’re not here to give the players a chance to explore your finely crafted setting. You’re not trying to kill the players (though monsters might be). You’re most certainly not here to tell everyone a planned-out story.
Well now. That pretty much looks to be telling you that this isn't about Gygaxian skilled play in megadungeons. It isn't about MY PRECIOUS setting or "big canon". It isn't about adversarial GMing and always trying to one-up players and put them in their stinkin' place. It certainly isn't about APs or railroading meta-plot down players' throats.
There's a bit in the second paragraph about the players helping to create the world - a world where adventurers tend to get caught up in dangerous events - but that's not entirely untenable as long as the player can separate the role of creator from the role of character.
That isn't
a bit. That is pretty central. And that isn't talking about before play. That is talking about
the emergent feature of the Dungeon World conversation at the table. If you follow your GM agenda (fill their lives with adventure) and then follow the GMing principles when making moves in response to player moves, the inevitable outcome will be an engaging and dynamic world. You'll be
portraying a fantastic world that
fills the character's lives with adventure. And because
it isn't a finely crafted setting that you've developed before play, you'll also get to
play to find out what happens just like the other players (bonus!).
Finally,
fill their lives with adventure is just another form of "skip the guards and get to the fun (!)" or, more relevant,
push play towards conflict (given that there is an exact analogue to this in Apocalypse World - Vincent Baker's game...who coined "push play towards conflict" - and all of the PBtA hacks). It isn't unbiased. It isn't neutral. It isn't about mundane crap happening and the trash-heap, pestilential, sewer-filled-street drudgery of the rank and file of a midieval world. It very specifically is telling you that the onscreen needs to be fantastic and filled with adventure.
The third paragraph really hits home, though - the players set their own agenda, and when conflict occurs, the GM honestly portrays the outcome of that conflict. The GM doesn't know what's going to happen, and doesn't try to inflict drama on the players. Conflict happens merely because it's a world where conflict tends to happen, and the GM is a neutral arbiter. The fun, for the GM, is to see what the players end up doing.
Again, this is a bit of a Rorschach test. The above is a really abridged and morphed version of the GM's agenda.
1) While the players obviously set their own agenda (which will be signaled to the GM via bonds and alignment statement), conflict doesn't just "occur." The GM is "filling their lives with adventure." That adventure is going to have a lot to do with those bonds and those alignment statements (to test them). You don't "inflict drama" upon them by framing them into adventurous scenarios or responding with dangerous/adventurous stuff when they make their moves. Unscripted drama (you're playing to find out what happens - nor imposing metaplot) just occurs as an inevitability if you're following your agenda and the principles (below it). Again, you cannot be neutral and unbiased when you're filling their lives with adventure (and then following your principles - more on that below). Otherwise, you'd be just as likely to fill their lives with mundane, monotonous, conflict-neutral content as you are fantastic adventure! But you're not.
2) It is interesting that you seem to substitute "honestly" for "unbiased". What "honestly portray the outcomes of that action means" is "don't be an illusionsm-driven GM that
, whether retroactively or impromptu, manipulates backstory or the offscreen to advantage yourself over the players." That is what that statement means. It is specifically calling out that sort of crap adversarial GMing technique of dishonestly leveraging what only you can be privy to (which ends up deprotanonize the PCs). It doesn't mean, make mundane stuff happen just as likely as adventurous stuff happen when portraying the repercussions of action (that would be violating your agenda afterall!).
It means "don't make up an Ace in the Hole to put/keep yourself in a position of power over your players." That sort of GM force rubbish is what bad GMs have done historically. I don't want you to break in this place via teleport? OMG anti-teleportation magic. I don't want you to be able to scry and gain intel? OMG anti-scrying magic. I don't want you to defeat this NPC now (like that dragonborn in that godawful 5e adventure)? OMG he has 5 jillion HPs/stoneskins of plot protection and even if you kill him it matters not at all because his evil twin brother will lead the scourge against you!
That is what it is talking about.
This description is not against process-sim in any way.)
On this I agree. It doesn't specifically call out process-sim. But it sort of implies it because it is impossible to simultaneously model process (and spit out the inevitable, uninteresting things that will arise from that formulation) and "fill the characters' lives with adventure." However, the rest of the system is pretty much blatantly adversarial to process-sim (from GM principles, to the basic resolution mechanics, to player and GM moves).
Here was my takeway regarding protagonization:
* Dungeon World is all about guts, guile, and bravery against darkness and doom.
Points of Light anyone?
* Without the player characters the world would fall into chaos or destruction—it might still even with them.
This is as close to a reformatting of D&D4e's statements on the matter as I could possibly imagine. The player characters are special.
* Filling the characters’ lives with adventure means working with the players to create a world that’s engaging and dynamic.
The players get their say in how their characters engender an engaging, dynamic world...and adventure is going to follow them wherever they go (like it does to literary and cinematic protagonists)!
* Dungeon World adventures
never presume player actions and play to find out what happens.
Those two alone protagonize the players with absolute agency and, through that, their PCs.
Lets put it all together. Players have absolute agency to affect change/outcomes. Big adventure. Not big metaplot. Not big setting. Big adventure. That big adventure is premised upon the world being full of darkness and doom....and without the player characters it will fall into chaos or destruction (perhaps even with them?).
We are all going to play to find out what happens.
And finally, the GMing principles that bind and inform GM moves (which is exactly what you should be doing in 4e in response to player actions...soft moves on success with complications and hard moves on failures):
Dungeon World
Ch 13 The GM; Gamesmastering p 160 (runs through 162)
Principles
* Draw maps, leave blanks
* Address the characters, not the players
* Embrace the fantastic
* Make a move that follows
* Never speak the name of your move
* Give every monster life
* Name every person
* Ask questions and use the answers
* Be a fan of the characters
* Think dangerous
* Begin and end with the fiction
* Think offscreen, too
Be a fan of the characters
Think of the players’ characters as protagonists in a story you might see on TV. Cheer for their victories and lament their defeats. You’re not here to push them in any particular direction, merely to participate in fiction that features them and their action.
Obviously note the bottom bolded part. This is important. The non-sequitur that "being a fan of the characters" or "protagonizing them" means favoring them mechanically or advancing them through a story needs to a die a quick, but terrible (I'm ok with that) death. It merely means that their status in the fiction defaults to heroic, special, and uniquely positioned to affect positive change. Whether they die or live to do great things is up to the formulation of the players' agency and the consultation of the resolution mechanics. But their default status is protagonist. And your job is to endlessly test their protagonist mettle and find out what happens.
TLDR; WORDS WORDS WORDS SHUT UP ALREADY