What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

I think one of the problems is the appropriation of words by some game designers. Protagonism in plain English does not demand what you have made of it. I realize over time that words do become game designer speak and mean different things. I am not criticising that necessarily.

I disagree. A protagonist is the lead character -- the absolute focus of the story. If play is such that the PC is reacting to the world, then there's a good argument that they aren't the protagonist of the story -- they aren't the lead character because the story doesn't focus on and revolve around them.

I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though. Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?

So here is the confusion. If God created a real fantasy world with real magic, took you and dropped you into it would you have protagonism or not? I think you'd say no by the standards of game design. I think for the people on the other side their eyes would bug out because how could you not have protagonism as you'd be a real living person in a real fantasy world. The reality is that as a real person in a real fantasy world you would have no authorial ability. You'd just be able to do whatever you as a human could do in that world. For us that is the very essence of protagonism in its purest english language sense before game designers redefined the term.

Nope. Of course there's no protagonism there. That story doesn't revolve around the character.

Again, I am not criticising game designers creating their own meta-language but when you come on these boards you shouldn't assume that we know game designer speak. It would be like be talking about objects and design patterns in the field of programming. You might respond, "I know what an object is..." but you don't in terms of my redefinition of the term. And yes you'd be using the original usage. Object existed as a word before programming. So I'd need to be careful when talking to a non-programmer.

There's no redefinition, here. You take the straight English word and look at the game and see who and what it focuses on.

And, like @Aldarc, I play both sides of the fence, here. The game I'm currently running has no protagonism, although I hope to have some points where the players get to engage in some, that's certainly not guaranteed. I don't have any problem with this, and play is fun! Just finished a session last night, which was primarily a dungeon crawl, where the players explored the GM's notes (what's in this room, is this trapped, can I unlock that door, what treasure is there, what monsters are here?), and my players all chimed in at the end to say it was a really fun session. I'm not at all ashamed about that session, nor do I feel it was in any way lesser for having no protagonism and being about exploring the GM's notes. That's a great way to have fun!

 

[Aldarc]

I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though. Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?

I suspect that people don't like anything that dispels any of the smoke and mirrors of the game and reveals "how the meat is made." It sounds much more romantic to say "we're playing to see the magical Wizard of Oz" than it is to say "we're playing to see the charlatan behind the curtain pulling mechanical levers" though these are fundamentally the same thing as far as play goes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I suspect that people don't like anything that dispels any of the smoke and mirrors of the game and reveals "how the meat is made." It sounds much more romantic to say "we're playing to see the magical Wizard of Oz" than it is to say "we're playing to see the charlatan behind the curtain pulling mechanical levers" though these are fundamentally the same thing as far as play goes.

Knowing how the 'meat is made' is very important to running these games successfully. What people don't like is people insisting on what the recipe is even when we know that isn't the case through experience.

 

[kenada]

I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though. Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?

I suspect the issue is that constructing the alternative word as the negation of protagonism has a poor connotation. It would be like referring to vegans as non-carnivores. It may be technically correct, but it will cause friction and misunderstanding. I’d proffer “experiential” as the dual to protagonistic, but I just made that up right now, and I’m not sure it is universal enough to cover the spread of styles that fall under “non-protagonistic”.

 

[Imaro]

I disagree. A protagonist is the lead character -- the absolute focus of the story. If play is such that the PC is reacting to the world, then there's a good argument that they aren't the protagonist of the story -- they aren't the lead character because the story doesn't focus on and revolve around them.

I don't understand this line of thinking at all... If not the characters whose decisions, actions, etc we are focusing on then who is the protagonist of the story in your above statement? As an example Superheroes react to the world, villain plots, loved one's in danger all the time and yet I don't think you would make the argument that say Superman isn't the protagonist of a Superman comic book... would you? I really am having a hard time grasping this logic.

EDIT: You are also assuming that the playstyle we are describing is only ever the PC reacting and we've made it clear that in actual play this just isn't a valid or honest assessment of what happens at the table.

I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though. Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?

I can't answer for Ovinomancer but I thing the "need" to claim it for our playstyle (I don't think anyone is speaking for all playstyles) is because claiming it doesn't exist in our playstyle is, in at least how I view protagonism, incorrect and we are correcting you. It's pretty simple especially when you have to take a word and laden it with qualifiers in order to make your categorization stick. I don't want to pull out defintions but maybe it would be a good idea for some to actually look at what the word protagonist means.

 

[Imaro]

I suspect that people don't like anything that dispels any of the smoke and mirrors of the game and reveals "how the meat is made." It sounds much more romantic to say "we're playing to see the magical Wizard of Oz" than it is to say "we're playing to see the charlatan behind the curtain pulling mechanical levers" though these are fundamentally the same thing as far as play goes.

Orrrr... as various posters have stated, it's a mischaracterization.

 

[Emerikol]

I disagree. A protagonist is the lead character -- the absolute focus of the story. If play is such that the PC is reacting to the world, then there's a good argument that they aren't the protagonist of the story -- they aren't the lead character because the story doesn't focus on and revolve around them.

Well with a group of players, I'm assuming you are at least allowing for each party member to be a protagonist even by your definition. Every work of fiction almost ever though has the hero of the story reacting to events in the world so I don't get why you object on those grounds. I mean Sauron was threatening the world and seeking the one true ring. Does that mean Frodo was not a protagonist?

I don't understand the need to claim this word for all play, though. Do you feel like this is a slight, to say that more traditional modes of play (ie, heavy GM prep) do not do something, or is it because this word has some positive connotation and there's the implication that not having it apply to a given mode of play suggests that it's less positive?

Nope. Of course there's no protagonism there. That story doesn't revolve around the character.

I think you've taken protagonism to an extreme and then declared anything not to that extreme is not protagonism.

There's no redefinition, here. You take the straight English word and look at the game and see who and what it focuses on.

I think there is and you've not really made the case that it is not. The word protagonism as you use it is not the way protagonism has been used for centuries. Long before roleplaying games. Heroes decide to do something about the world they live in. The Heroe's Journey in fiction very much is about a reluctant hero finally deciding to face a challenge.

And, like @Aldarc, I play both sides of the fence, here. The game I'm currently running has no protagonism, although I hope to have some points where the players get to engage in some, that's certainly not guaranteed. I don't have any problem with this, and play is fun! Just finished a session last night, which was primarily a dungeon crawl, where the players explored the GM's notes (what's in this room, is this trapped, can I unlock that door, what treasure is there, what monsters are here?), and my players all chimed in at the end to say it was a really fun session. I'm not at all ashamed about that session, nor do I feel it was in any way lesser for having no protagonism and being about exploring the GM's notes. That's a great way to have fun!

I am not taking offense about the term. I'm just saying that in common use of the language it does not mean what you think it means. I've given leeway that perhaps there is a group in the game design community that have appropriated the word for a specific type of game. And to be honest stuff like that happens all the time.

 

[Aldarc]

Orrrr... as various posters have stated, it's a mischaracterization.

Ah, yes. The same people who keep ignoring and pretending like we don’t have firsthand experience running and playing in these sort of games too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't understand this line of thinking at all... If not the characters whose decisions, actions, etc we are focusing on then who is the protagonist of the story in your above statement? As an example Superheroes react to the world, villain plots, loved one's in danger all the time and yet I don't think you would make the argument that say Superman isn't the protagonist of a Superman comic book... would you? I really am having a hard time grasping this logic.

EDIT: You are also assuming that the playstyle we are describing is only ever the PC reacting and we've made it clear that in actual play this just isn't a valid or honest assessment of what happens at the table.

I'll try this again, but it's been well covered. A protagonist has dramatic needs -- the story featuring a protagonist revolves around the protagonist's drama, not other characters' drama. When a PC in a game meets a dragon, say, and the GM has already planned out what the dragon's needs and wants are, and what it's doing in the story, then this is divorced from the protagonists needs. Sure, the PC can make choices about what to do about the dragon, and this is the core of a good game, but the locus of the dramatic need here is on the dragon -- the PC is reacting to what the dragon is about and wants, and then deciding what the PC wants to do with regard to the dragon. To put it another way, this situation starts with the GM, and (maybe) ends with the PC. The maybe is there because the player may decide to do something else, in which case the GM will usually play out what they imagined the dragons does, thereby both starting and ending that thread with the GM.

If the game is centered in protagonism, then it would start with the PC -- the only way there'd be a dragon is if it directly ties to the PC's dramatic needs, like say if a PC was created with the goal to be a noted dragon-slayer, then the dragon is in the game because the PC needs a dragon to slay, not for any other reasons. The player inserts this dragon because it has to be there to deliver on the PC's dramatic need. Then play will focus on the PC's quest to slay a dragon, and not on what the dragon may want. Complications will accrue here through play -- most systems that support this play generate complication through the mechanics, thereby charging the situation and discovering what happens on the PC's quest -- not just does the PC slay a dragon, but what the dragon is doing that counters the PC's need, and if, indeed, the PC even succeeds at there need -- note this may be stopping the dragon but failing the need. Here, the play starts with the PC, but may end with the GM due to failure.

I can't answer for Ovinomancer but I thing the "need" to claim it for our playstyle (I don't think anyone is speaking for all playstyles) is because claiming it doesn't exist in our playstyle is, in at least how I view protagonism, incorrect and we are correcting you. It's pretty simple especially when you have to take a word and laden it with qualifiers in order to make your categorization stick. I don't want to pull out defintions but maybe it would be a good idea for some to actually look at what the word protagonist means.

I'm not using a single qualifier. Protagonism is, quite literally, about protagonists. And protagonists are the center of a story -- the story focuses on that character(s) dramatic need(s). There's nothing twisted here, no redefinitions. It's straightfoward. Instead, what I see is a confusion with letting players make choices about what they do, which is not the same thing. That's agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ah, yes. The same people who keep ignoring and pretending like we don’t have firsthand experience running and playing in these sort of games too.

I know, right? I played some D&D with a friend with Basic, and a bit of 1e, but really didn't get into what I'd consider a "real" group until 2e. And, that campaign features an extremely detailed sandbox game, pretty much exactly as @Emerikol has described their play. That was my experience for the first decade of play, as I adopted that approach as well. Then 3e rolled out, and I did that and some large adventures (I have found memories of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, for instance). I found 4e hard to work with because it seemed to fight this kind of approach, but had some successes there anyway. It was around this time I tried Burning Wheel and absolutely bounced off of it, hard! Then 5e came out, and my first game was a Big Plot game, with a well detailed world (I had trade details between countries, even, so I could simulate disruptions) with a primary plot line dealing with an apocalyptic threat. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that I started to even consider how a game like Burning Wheel might work, and as little at 2-3 years ago that I actually successfully tried Blades in the Dark. I continue to refine my understanding of how games work.

But, all of this gets dismissed as just the zeal of the "recently converted," like somehow learning a new thing about RPGs means you forget how other things work, or even stop liking them.