What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

@Manbearcat Yeah, that's pretty much the sliding scale I was envisioning. I think where this conversation gets sticky is that the a given premise and rules set can be all over that map. I think this is because volitional play/dramatic needs are much more a function of how the GM and players play, via explicit or implicit conventions and agreements than they are of a given rules set. Some rules sets obviously support the idea more than others, but that's not, IMO, the prime mover (not that you said it was). This plays back to @Ovinomancer 's concern above that was conflating agency with dramatic needs, which I'm actually not, I'm subsuming that idea into the idea of agency and of agency-first play. Both because I think that's where it lives, but also because I don't do the one without the other when I run games (YMMV of course). Just to be tranparent about how my personal experiences and style are impacting this discussion.

 

[Umbran]

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

There's a decent argument that the detail about Thanos is largely there to fulfill Gamora and Nebula's dramatic needs.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

Isn't that a criticism of the players though more than the DM? Unless the world is poorly designed and nothing is happening and then I'd criticize the DM.

I mean if a PC said his life goal was to fish in a stream in a quiet hut in the forest what do I do with that? Make the forest one of the most dangerous places in the world and he has to conquer the forest to get to his hut?

There are certain assumptions when playing heroic fantasy. You have people who want to be heroes and do fantastical things. You create a world where heroes are needed. Where evil forces are afoot. I make lots of plot threads and the PCs pursue what interests them. If there was some great disconnect between what the PCs desire and what the DM is creating, then I'd recommend a longer discussion ahead of time about what sort of world the players would like to see. I don't have that problem but for those that do that is my recommendation.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

If you look at any critical evaluation (any of them...by scholars, screenwriters, actors, etc) of the term Protagonist, it is not about "screen time." It is always about dramatic need. And the Antagonist is about obstructing/foiling the dramatic need of the Protagonist.

No Country for Old Men is the perfect encapsulation of this.

You have 3 main characters:

Llewelyn Moss
Anton Chigurh
Sheriff Ed Tom Bell

• All 3 of these characters express the themes of the story.
• Llewelyn Moss has the most screen time.
• Anton Chigurh DIRECTLY opposes Llewelyn.
• But Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (despite lesser screen time) is unequivocally the Protagonist because of the implications and (both real world and philosophical) fallout of Anton vs Llewelyn, the nature of Anton's existence, the nature of the setting and themes being revealed, Llewelyn's lack of agency (though his perception of his own agency) and his ultimately incidental/unceremonious ending (which the Sheriff aimed to stop).

The world has passed Sheriff Ed Tom Bell by...he is, in fact, overmatched.

Notions of justice, competency, will, and being "the good guy" doesn't matter when fate, dumb luck, and the corrupted powerful conspire against.

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell can't stop what's coming...ultimately, no one can (not even Anton). To pretend otherwise is vanity. Surrender (retiring) is the same as pressing on.

This is, indeed, No Country for Old Men (and not for young ones either).

 

[Manbearcat]

There's a decent argument that the detail about Thanos is largely there to fulfill Gamora and Nebula's dramatic needs.

There is a VERY decent argument that the most compelling conflict and dramatic needs of the story did in fact orbit around these 3 characters.

The reality that the intersection of the collision and resolution of these dramatic needs was backgrounded so deeply and that the story arc didn't give you (and by you I guess I mean me) anything even remotely nearing fulfillment (or even sufficient screen time) is, in my opinion, the primary big failing of those two movies (along with run time, muddled theme/pacing/mood).

I was extremely disappointed in that. It had amazing moments, but I thought that last movie was profoundly overated (and not in small part because of Gamora and Nebula's conflict/love not being sufficiently centered, relevant, resolved as it collided with their father).

 

[Aldarc]

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

Well, no. Because a "protagonist" is strictly the primary main character. Beyond that is the deuteragonist and the tritagonist. I think that one can talk of a protagonist, a deuteragonist, or a tritagonist, but once it get's beyond that point, then we are generally speaking about tertiary characters. This is because the number of arcs for a dramatic structure of a fictive text tend to become less coherent and focused. So even in an ensemble cast of characters, there will typically not be more than 1-3 main characters whose actions propel the dramatic narrative towards its climax.

Aang is the protagonist of Avatar the Last Airbender, and Zuko is the deuteragonist. Do the other characters have their own arcs? Sure, but they are not the ones that propel the main narrative arcs: e.g., "As avatar, I must defeat Firelord Ozai" and "As the Crown Prince, I must regain my honor." There are still other prominent characters, such as Katara, Sokka, Toph, etc., but the terms "protagonist" and "deuteragonist" are reserved for the Aang and Zuko, respectively. Likewise, Iron Man is definitely one of the main characters, and a strong case could be made that he is the protagonist of the Avengers' Thanos arc, but saying that he's one of many protagonists is a confusion of terms.

Edit: I imagine that @darkbard is more well-versed about this than I am and can offer greater clarity.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

I'm perfectly fine with that, but it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too bulky. I mean, DNFP would work but the acronym itself is a mouthful.

Which is, again, why I like Protagonist Play. A player or a set of players in a Ravenloft game that is entirely centered around Strahd's Dramatic Need are the Antagonists to his Protagonism (even if they can't articulate it) regardless of their screen time. And players knows when they've been Deprotagonized (as mentioned above with the Paladin/partner/friend or my example just upthread replete with Deus Ex Machina and Force). And they know when conflict framing and resolution foregrounds their dramatic needs to a larger or lesser extent.

This is all Protagonism related.

 

[Umbran]

... but saying that he's one of many protagonists is a confusion of terms.

I think it is less a confusion of terms, and more a recognition that the term originates considering simply constructed fictions. In stories with many characters, built over years, it is possible to not have a single clear protagonist. If they hand the hat around enough, they are all protagonists in turn.

 

[Aldarc]

I think it is less a confusion of terms, and more a recognition that the term originates considering simply constructed fictions. In stories with many characters, built over years, it is possible to not have a single clear protagonist. If they hand the hat around enough, they are all protagonists in turn.

IMHO, the Avengers' movies are a simply constructed fiction. Each movie has its primary dramatic structure, and I suspect that one could likely identify the dramatic climax of each movie. And at the center we would likely not find anywhere close to the full ensemble of characters, who may have arcs and stories of their own, but to say that they are all protagonists of that movie would be somewhat far-fetched.

 

[Imaro]

Well, no. Because a "protagonist" is strictly the primary main character. Beyond that is the deuteragonist and the tritagonist. I think that one can talk of a protagonist, a deuteragonist, or a tritagonist, but once it get's beyond that point, then we are generally speaking about tertiary characters. This is because the number of arcs for a dramatic structure of a fictive text tend to become less coherent and focused. So even in an ensemble cast of characters, there will typically not be more than 1-3 main characters whose actions propel the dramatic narrative towards its climax.

Aang is the protagonist of Avatar the Last Airbender, and Zuko is the deuteragonist. Do the other characters have their own arcs? Sure, but they are not the ones that propel the main narrative arcs: e.g., "As avatar, I must defeat Firelord Ozai" and "As the Crown Prince, I must regain my honor." There are still other prominent characters, such as Katara, Sokka, Toph, etc., but the terms "protagonist" and "deuteragonist" are reserved for the Aang and Zuko, respectively. Likewise, Iron Man is definitely one of the main characters, and a strong case could be made that he is the protagonist of the Avengers' Thanos arc, but saying that he's one of many protagonists is a confusion of terms.

Edit: I imagine that @darkbard is more well-versed about this than I am and can offer greater clarity.

If there are multiple stories within one movie then it is actually possible to have more than one protagonist... but I get your point and (for the most part) agree.