What is the point of GM's notes?

[Imaro]

I think this may be a good example to discuss.

Do you see those rare instances when it's not possible to incorporate the player's ideas about their character into the proposed campaign as being a case of not allowing protagonism? And I don't mean this as a challenge or anything....just general questions that come to mind based on this.

I tend to have session 0 for all games I play now to avoid this thing but that said if it did happen...

No I don't. "Protagonism" is something explored through your character so until said character is established in the fiction, there is no protagonism to allow. I would ask does this apply to the other side of the coin as well? If I have a concept that is totally unsuitable for say a game of Blades in the Dark... is asking me to fall in line with the game an act of not allowing "protagonism"?

Do you regret not being able to figure out a way for this to work? Do you try and find another, more suitable idea/goal/concept for the character? So maybe the idea of a PC as a pirate won't work for this coming campaign, but instead you come up with the idea that he can be a bounty hunter (this is an admittedly rudimentary example, but I hope it suffices), and maybe save the pirate idea for another game where it will maybe be a better fit.

It depends. If it's blatant disregard of what we discussed in session zero... no I don't regret not accommodating it. If it's a misunderstanding or we didn't discuss it, I do regret it and I will try my hardest to fit their concept in if not then I will try to come to a compromise we both find acceptable (one of the reasons I like D&D is because it's usually not hard to come to some type of compromise in this area).

Is the setting more important? If the setting is more important, do you think that says anything about the idea of protagonism in that game? Could the setting be adjusted to fit the character rather than the character to fit the setting?

The setting is the setting, again session zero this is what we as a group decided to play, and one player bringing an inappropriate concept to play with does not, IMO, mean the setting should be changed to accommodate said concept, especially if you have buy in and aligned concepts from the rest of your group. Now if the majority of the group does this it's time to have a candid conversation about whether there was a misunderstanding in session zero or if this is the game/setting we really want to play in. If it's not, then it's time to find something else we are all excited about.

I don't think a willingness to change the setting based on a players concept speaks to "protagonism" in the game at all, I think it speaks to whether expectations and social contracts were set and agreed upon properly. Again I ask... if I as a player come to BitD with a concept that has nothing to do with criminals in a dark fantasy city does it say anything about in game "protagonism" if the GM doesn't change the setting of BitD to accommodate me?

Does the presence of multiple players and potentially multiple character concepts with the chance of conflict make this harder? And is there any way to avoid that? Are there ways of taking multiple points of input from different players and making them all work both together and with the setting?

I probably sound like a broken record but session zero for the win, this is the time to vet these multiple concepts, goals, dramatic needs, etc to make sure they don't create an unviable situation to run for the GM. Something I've learned from looking at many of the games being specifically touted as promoting "protagonism" is that it's easier to run if one creates an overarching premise that all characters have to be tied into... again examples are BitD (all criminals in a gang together), The Spire (Drow revolutionaires fighting the good fight), Band of Blades (Soldiers in a retreating army trying to make it to safety), DitV (Mormon-esque gunslingers dealing with sin)... and so on. So I would say creating this overarching premise or theme before character creation would either avoid some of the difficulty or help tremendously with it.
Of course this is why I have such a hard time with the premise that protagonism is tied into whether a players inappropriate character concept should cause a change to the setting or vice versa. Most of the games I've seen that are indicated as promoting "protagonism" are very specific in their premise and setting details.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is an interesting thing to disagree about. I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could not be about their dramatic needs. Unless you're positing some sort of arrangement where the players don't make decisions based on those needs but the GM is just supposed to insert them?

Let's postulate a dungeon. The play features exploring this dungeon. Does the fact that one PC has a dramatic need that they want to be the best pit-fighter in the realm have anything at all to do with the dungeon, or would play look largely similar with a completely different dramatic need for that PC?

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is an interesting thing to disagree about. I fail to see how any game that is driven by player actions could not be about their dramatic needs. Unless you're positing some sort of arrangement where the players don't make decisions based on those needs but the GM is just supposed to insert them?

I think where you might see this is the world not responding or adding by dramatic logic. I think its fuzzy though, it depends on how you define drama. My experience is most sandbox GMs will resist the drama label, and actively avoid engaging drama. Not all of course, but it is worth noting a lot of what makes a given sandbox is the kind of logic the GM applies to deciding what happens in the world. I like doing genre, so for me, I feel drama can be on the table. I think for it to be drama though the bar has to be higher than: I want to take over this city (and some player characters just want to take over a city). At the same time, I've had plenty of campaigns where taking over a city, turned into a drama of human relationships.

 

[Fenris-77]

Let's postulate a dungeon. The play features exploring this dungeon. Does the fact that one PC has a dramatic need that they want to be the best pit-fighter in the realm have anything at all to do with the dungeon, or would play look largely similar with a completely different dramatic need for that PC?

The pitfighter part has almost nothing to do with the dungeon IMO, it could be a city, or a sunny meadow. If the player is playing to that need, for example, arranging fights tactically to support that idea, or roleplaying it at all really, the GM should be responding in kind. This is much the same as wanting to be the best wizard in the realm, or anything really. If the players end up in a dungeon it will be by their own choice or as a result of their own actions, but the dungeon itself isn't there to support any dramatic needs. The extent to which a particular dramatic need will play in that particular venue will depend on the player and the GM and the usual recursive play cycle. If I'm that GM and your pitfighter is playing to that need I feel like it's my job to make sure it gets spotlight. Any factoin interactions, for example, could very easily involve pitfighting elements. An orc in 10x10 room, not so much.

That said, where that dramatic need might play in more is in what that character might chose to do in the first place. If they're looking for places to pitfight, and playing to that best pitfighter idea, then they should find places and encounters, or parts thereof that help scaffold that need. So perhaps that location ends up having a pitfighting component, who knows. But when you're talking about emergent play it's a little but awkward to just pick a random spot without context and say "well how would that work?"

 

[Imaro]

No, else we're back to Monopoly featuring protagonism. To use my prior example, Infinity Wars features Iron Man making choices, which drive the emergent story, but he is not the protagonist of that film, Thanos is. That story is entirely about Thanos meeting his dramatic needs, his goals, and the trials and tribulations he faces along the way to realizing them. Then, he does, and his protagonism ends, and the second Infinity Wars movie switches back to the Avengers being the protagonists.

There can be more than one protagonist in a story... In Infinity War...Thanos is the main antagonist... Iron Man is one of many protagonists

To leverage this example into RPGs, if the primary thrust of play is for the PCs to decide how they will deal with this or that threat (introduced by the GM), then they aren't the protagonists, but they may have agency in determining how the play will turn out.

The fact that the emergent story is created from and focused on the decisions the PC's make to deal with this or that threat (introduced by the GM) is what makes them the protagonists of said emergent story. A Threat alons no matter how well detailed is not in and of itself a story.

The ability to affect the play is about agency. What the play is about is about protagonism. If play is about exploring a dungeon the GM thought of and created, then there's no protagonism here, because the play is not about the dramatic needs of the PCs. This is true even if the player manage to find ways to insert their own desires and wants, and is so because what the GM presents is orthogonal to the players doing this -- it's up to the players to find ways to do this, the game doesn't focus on this.

If the players decided to go to that dungeon vs the city of Agrabar is influencing what play is about. If the dramtic need of the PC is to explore dungeons it doesn't matter if the GM creats it or not his dramatic need is being explored.

If the game is focused on the decisions and resulting ramifications of the choices the players are making. They can choose or choose not to make their dramatic needs the focus of play. The only way they lack protagonism is if this option is taken off the table, otherwise they have protagonism and need only exert it.

You keep mixing "the player can do what they want" with what the game is about.

No I'm not I'm clearly stating what the game is about. You seem to be suggesting that the GM pre-creating something precludes it from being a part of the PC's exploring their dramatic needs and yet I haven't see any evidence to support this conclusion. The crux of this really seems to be floating around how much authorial control is given vs. whether protagonism is present. Why not just say this difference in styles is authorial control then?

 

[Manbearcat]

If the players create goals and dramatic needs that align with the pre-noted setting... is this still necessary for protagonism or can it be achieved without the setting emerging, changing, etc, with respect to this orbit?

I think this whole idea is better envisioned as a sliding scale rather than a binary. Also, to quickly address @Manbearcat from just above, I think that from the list of emerges, accretes and changes, the word people are going to get stuck on is probably emerges. In a heavy GM prep game where the players don't have input into the setting outside the action-adjudication cycle I think you can still have protagonism, or -ists, or whatever. Accretes and changes are easy to picture and describe in terms of protagonist play, but emerges gets sticky.

Its not an exact binary, but it is absolutely a fine line between players being Protagonized and Deprotagonized.

Consider Imaro's question above.

My Life With Master is a predefined premise/set-up with specific constraints on the stage for the conflict:

• You need a bad guy who everyone creates together (this is the protagonist).
• You need a village that is under his/her thumb.
• You need pathetic lackeys (the PCs) that do the bad guy's bidding and interact with the village (until they do not).

Now (a) why is this not a Railroad and (b) why is this deeply Protagonistic play. Its because:

1 - The players dictate the volitional force of the play (which manifests as Dramatic Need...this is NOT the premise of play...premise is something different).

2 - Conflict framing is entirely about the evolution (development or erosion) of this volitional force.

3 - Conflict framing + PC build + decision-point + resolution mechanic + character evolution feedback loop scheme (machinery of play) is set up to test if that volitional force can be wrested.

4 - Through the integration of all of the above, the through line of play is always different, always coherently addresses the premise of play, and always tests volitional force (or Dramatic Need).

---

So to look at the above @Imaro and answer your question, play will be more or less Protagonizing depending upon the below continuums:

* Players dictate volitional force of play < > Players do not dictate volitional force of play *

* Dramatic Need foregrounded via conflict framing < > Dramatic Need backgrounded via conflict framing *

* The machinery of play transparently evolves the trajectory of play < > Some extra-machinery force transparently or opaquely evolves the trajectory of play *

* Does the integration of all of the above always (i) lead to a dynamic through line of play, (ii) coherently addresses the premise of play, and (iii) tests the dictated volitional force < > little or none of (i), (ii), (iii) *

The further you go toward the left of each of the above 4, the more Protagonizing Play is. The further you go toward the right of each of the above 4, the more Deprotagonizing Play is.

Here is an example of maximized Deprotagonizing for reference:

GM: "We're going to play a D&D game about dragon slaying and saving a kingdom! Here are your characters <hands over PC sheets randomly>!"

Later, in play (session 3)...

Player: "My Druid has sworn a vow to end an unnatural menace. There hasn't been anything unnatural so far. You said there is a forest fire? I'll bet the dragon's emissary wizard summoned fire elementals to threaten the kingdom! I shapechange into a wolf to sprint into the forest and battle the unnatural menace."

GM: "Nah...remember?...you saw a stroke of lightning hit the forest? I mean I guess maybe the Wizard could have caused that...but the fire brigade has it anyway. Don't worry about. Ok, back to parley with the King's Guard."

Later, play...

GM: <Thinking to themselves> Crap, the players took out the dragon so quickly because the combat system is too damn swingy...screw this...and I mean, really...this whole trope was boring 2 sessions ago... "Just when it appears that your sword blow has felled the dragon, the beast discorporates to mist which consumes everything around you...the haze lifts and you find yourself and your companions hanging from the rafters, hogtied upside down over a roiling cauldron, a Night Hag leering at you hungrily as she approaches! You've awaken from a dream! A stupor she has placed you in! What do you do!

OPERATION MAXIMUM DEPROTAGONIZATION COMPLETE

 

[kenada]

I get the vague impression that what's at the heart of the discussion is more akin to a geocentric model of play vs. anthrocentric model of play. If we say that play is metaphorically about "players exploring and interacting with the GM's world," then the metaphorical alternative could be envisioned as play being about "the GM exploring and interacting with the PC's drama."

I think this is where I was trying to go with “experiential” versus “protagonistic”, but I like this this framing much more. You’ve preserved the dichotomy, each style of play is defined by what it is does, and the names don’t prejudice the reader to think one way or the other is the default (or “best”) way of playing.

 

[Emerikol]

To mean, this is clearly against the definition of protagonism as it was introduced and repeatedly defined -- play does not center on the dramatic needs of the PCs, it instead centers on how the players interact with the setting. You've defined agency, here, not protagonism.

You are right. Some people took a fiction writing term and adopted it to fit their game design perspectives. Since they are strong advocates for their approach they then immediately said other games lack this quality that they like. The problem is they took a word with meaning. I can define the word "hat" to mean "turtle" and we can have a conversation. The hat has a pretty shell etc... That doesn't make hat really mean turtle.

So despite repeated attempts to get you to understand this point you refuse. You are apparently the absolute authority on this term. You are not. The word has a meaning. By every sense of the fictional concept, adventurers who choose to take up an adventure in a sandbox world is absolutely a protagonist. If I wrote this up as a story, that character would be a protagonist.

I've tried to help you out by pointing out the term is loaded and perhaps we should avoid it. Perhaps Dramatic Need Focused play would be a better term.

 

[innerdude]

So I'm fully sympathetic to claims of GMs and players who say that prefabricating campaign content doesn't remove the ability for the players (through their PCs) to set and pursue goals within the fiction.

If I'm being honest, I think my "ideal" kind of RPG play would be a merging of an interesting, dynamic, realized campaign setting with players/PCs being able to strongly pursue character agendas and goals within the setting.

And I think it was @Maxperson who talked about how his group's purpose of play isn't to "reveal the GM's notes," it's to pursue their character's agenda. The GM's "notes" merely create the situational framing / genre conventions in which that pursuit takes place.

The issues I always ran into as a GM who was attempting to prefabricate an "interesting, dynamic, and realized" setting, was that too often it felt like that the player goals generally 1) were rather shallow; 2) were only peripherally related to other group pursuits; 3) required a significant amount of negotiation / "Mother-may-I?" or outright "handwavium" to make them the focus of play; 4) the traditional rules of Savage Worlds give zero guidance for how to "make GM moves" that puts the players into tight spots and dynamically flow the downstream effects of what the PCs do within the world.

As a result, as a GM I almost never felt like the players were "protagonists" in their own story, so much as being carried along by the "grace of the GM's whims" toward whatever goal they were pursuing.

Part of the issue too is that despite the ability for the players to set goals and pursue agendas, they were always necessarily limited by the reach of their locus of control. There's one particular Savage Worlds campaign I'm thinking of, where the players ended up interacting with a very limited set of the total prefabricated elements, because they couldn't envision or imagine ways in which their characters could effect change within the framing of those elements. So they just ignored them.

So the question for me became --- how do I better integrate the PCs' dramatic needs into the fictional framing without just full-on asking them, "So, your PC wants to accomplish X. What barriers to that end goal to you foresee as coming to pass? And how will it be fun for you to approach and overcome those challenges from within the space of your character and the fiction?"

That approach felt . . . unsatisfying. It felt dangerously close to violating the Czege Principle.

But perhaps it wouldn't have been if we had set the challenges in front of us together . . . but then left the pursuit and resolution of those challenges to the play at hand?

To use an earlier example ---

"Oh, so you want to become the supreme leader of the barbarian tribes of the north? All righty then, well, to accomplish that, you'll first need to do something profoundly meaningful enough to attract the attention of each tribe's leader---like, say, defeat the frost dragon that haunts the great ice caves, or defeat the great Wyvern, or reclaim the lost spear of Uthganian, or recover enough unobtanium to forge the world's greatest axe, or whatever. Next, you'll need to either sway or eliminate any resisting tribal leaders. Next, you'll need to convince the tribespeople that you do have their best interests at heart. So where do you want to start?"

So I suppose setting up that kind of framing isn't a Czege Principle violation . . . there's still plenty of room for the player to pursue those challenges.

But the longer I look at that list, the more I begin to see how without player-facing resolution mechanics how hard it would be frame those situations. With only basic, traditional, task-resolution mechanics (like Pathfinder or Savage Worlds, which is what I know best), they either have to do it through direct combat prowess---because that's what 90% of the mechanics are focused on---or the GM has to specifically frame some other way to resolve those challenges that isn't just about the party killing whoever/whatever is in front of them.

And then suddenly we're right back where we started---the GM's notes on how these challenges can be resolved are now the controlling factor as to whether a PC can or can't succeed at their stated goal.

So for me, it's a difficult conundrum. Because I want those strongly realized, in-depth campaign settings. They're immensely satisfying to build and watch "come to life" in play. But I don't know that they really give my players as much true control over their characters, but only the illusion of control.

 

[Emerikol]

Its not an exact binary, but it is absolutely a fine line between players being Protagonized and Deprotagonized.

Look, I think at least some of us understand the concept. It is the term we differ about and think you are misusing. Let's just call what you are talking about "Dramatic Need Focused Play". I think that better fits what you are talking about.