What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

@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.

I agree with this. Some games perpetuate Protagonistic play extraordinarily well. Some games are at tension with the concept or outright fight it due to some collection of incoherent alignment of incentive structures + procedures + GMing techniques + authority distribution (particularly troupe play where the premise of play is disconnected, or trivially disconnectable, with dramatic need and/or dramatic need is intentionally/incompetently backgrounded or dictated by a 3rd party).

You definitely know the difference when they're in action!

Social contract helps mitigate the gap (you can build a couple of ramps and make the leap...but you aren't outright making a bridge) between the two for sure...but design/focus differently and you don't have to worry about gaps or mitigating social contract!

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?"

Yes! Protagonism occurs when play is about the PCs dramatic needs. If I've built my world prior to the PC generation, then I'm not protagonizing the PCs in that world -- I'm building a world that doesn't care about the PCs' dramatic needs. That the player can, within that world, try to make moves that invoke their dramatic need doesn't change that the world is not a protagonistic world. What this is is agency -- the ability to make choices that matter. This isn't the same as protagonism, which is about how the entire game is structured and what it focuses on.

After this big point, which I hope we can agree on, there's lots of details about how play is generated even when nominally involving a PC dramatic need. Again, the key element here is focus. A good detail here is my example tiefling from my game -- that she will, undoubtedly, seek out the devil responsible for her family's curse, how that fiction is generated is key to evoking protagonism. For example, it's absolutely true that this devil exists in my game and will be a factor in it solely because of the PC's dramatic need. However, the adventure then only has a small amount of protagonism because it will still be almost entirely about foiling the NPC's plan which was conceived without any of the PCs in my game being created.

 

[Imaro]

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.

But they often have more than one story going on within a single movie...

 

[Umbran]

... to say that they are all protagonists of that movie would be somewhat far-fetched.

You are welcome to your preferred interpretation, for your own consideration. Your expectations on agreement from others, however, should be limited.

 

[Aldarc]

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 agree.

But they often have more than one story going on within a single movie...

I don't think that multiple stories in a movie (or medium) necessarily means that there are multiple protagonists. There are multiple stories in Avatar the Last Airbender, but I would be reluctant to call Katara or Sokka, who each have stories and arcs of their own, "protagonists." We can be reading the Amazing Spider-Man and understand that Harry Osborn, Flash Thompson, and Mary J. Watson have their own stories and arcs in the paneled pages, but would they all be protagonists? I doubt that many would think so. Most people would likely identify Spider-Man/Peter Parker as the protagonist. If we look in literature, we will find similar things.

You are welcome to your preferred interpretation, for your own consideration. Your expectations on agreement from others, however, should be limited.

My main expectation is the generation of further discourse. But if there is a case to be made for multiple protagonists, which I have never really seen presented before this thread, then I'm sure such analytical work has already been done in the respective fields of fiction analysis. I think that if you are dealing with stories with many protagonists, such that one could not easily identify a protagonist, deuteragonist, or tritagonist, then you are likely dealing with a story no protagonist at all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Nope, reversed. Infinity War is entirely about the dramatic needs of Thanos. Heck, the filmmakers tell you this at the end, even, when the splash says that Thanos will return. This is an intentional design of this film, and has been talked about both in critical analysis and by the filmmakers. Thanos is the protagonist.

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.

No, it doesn't, really. To look at Infinity Way again, the choices that Tony Stark makes absolutely create emergent story (within the conceit that this is an emerging story, of course), but he's not the protagonist -- the things he's doing aren't about his dramatic needs, but instead foiling the dramatic needs of Thanos. In a D&D game, this can look like a PC taking actions, and having emergent features occur due to them, when attempting to foil the plot of a necromancer trying to take over the kingdom. The dramatic need in this story is the necromancers -- the game is about his desire to take over the kingdom. The PCs here are reactionary, they do things to thwart this dramatic need, and, if agency is present, they change the resulting story, hopefully to the point of thwarting and defeating the necromancer's dramatic need.

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.

This is agency.

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.

No, this is agency. For protagonism, the things that are presented must be about the PCs, not just the results of what they decide to do with what's presented.

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?

Again, if you're making setting details that do not invoke the PCs' dramatic needs, then these are absolutely independent of whatever PC happens to be there, and so are not protagonism. If play largely features things like this, the protagonism is inhibited or not present. The AP I'm running right now features no protagonism at all within it's pages -- nothing about that adventure changes based on what PCs are playing it. The results may change, the path may change, but the AP is otherwise unchanged. This is because the AP allows for agency (albeit slight, it's a railroad), but doesn't allow for protagonism.

Again, I'm very curious as to why this concept is receiving such pushback. It's not a negative to not have protagonism -- lots of great games have little to no protagonism. The very goal of play as stated by @Emerikol is non-protagonism, but I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that he has a blast in his games. There's no need to have protagonism, it is not a good that improves any game by increasing it's amount or even having it. It's just an approach to games, which most of the people arguing they have it are also strongly in the camp that they would dislike these games. Is it just an argument so that a different style that is assumed to be disliked can't have something that your games do? Very strange, if so, because why else would you dislike those games if not because they have features you dislike?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sometimes they even go outside the notes. The players are smart and come up with things to do and try that are not always covered. I love it when that happens. Keeps me on my toes.

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;

That's up to the players, really. If they set a goal to go to the bar and get drunk, there's not going to be a tremendous depth to it. However, if they set the goal to take over the northern Bear tribe and use it to unite all the barbarian clans in order to take over Waterdeep, that's a goal that will have a lot of depth to it.

It's not the DM's job to set those goals. It's just his job to react to the players when they let him know what those goals are.

2) were only peripherally related to other group pursuits;

That's why during session 0 I have every player in the group, including myself put in 3-4 campaign ideas. Now we have 15-20 ideas in the pool. Each person including myself can outright veto one idea. That way, ideally, nobody has to play a campaign that they really hate. Everyone then ranks the remaining 10-15 ideas from 1 to #of ideas. The top 3 idea point totals get separated out and everyone votes again. That makes sure that not only is nobody is playing a campaign they hate, but it's one of the ones everyone liked, because a very low total will sink that idea and keep it from top 3.

Now I have a general campaign goal to work on that is for the entire group of players. They are on the same page. The players usually come up with individual goals that relate to that campaign goal. For example, if the group picked relic(artifact and relic) hunters, one player might write into his background that his father has been imprisoned in an unbreakable crystal and he needs to find an artifact or relic that will break it. Another might want one to help him become the ruler of his tribe. And so on.

The group now has a general goal, and brought together by that commonality, the quest for artifacts and relics, and because of the bonds of companionship, one agrees to help the other free his father and the other agrees to aid Grumak in becoming chief of his tribe. And so on.

3) required a significant amount of negotiation / "Mother-may-I?" or outright "handwavium" to make them the focus of play;

The above takes care of this as well. The goals start from moment one as the focus of play. However, like I posted in my previous example, the group can decide at any moment that they no longer want to hunt down relics and instead become pirates, using the relics they already have to run ragged over the high seas.

I don't negotiate with them, play mother may I or hand waive anything. They simply tell me what they are doing and I react accordingly. If they tell me that they are going to the port city of Athkatla to steal a ship, that's what they are doing. When they get there they will let me know how they go about it, and the game world will react to it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the nature of troupe play and the concept of "diffuse protagonism" is one that has to be discussed when it comes to TTRPGs.

I think (a) it is definitely a thing in TTRPGs ("diffuse protagonism") that feature it and (b) I think the composition of play tends toward (its not a sure thing...but tends) becoming increasingly muddled and the thematic potency less impactful the more diffuse it is (eg as participants increase).

Which I think trivially explains the autobiographical footnote of the last 15 years of my life with 3 PCs max in all of my games. That is, unless I'm playing a game that is Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawling (because play intentionally features no Protagonism)...then 4-5 is all good.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I am currently running a game that does not feature protagonism. I am doing this willingly, because I also enjoy this kind of game. This should, absolutely, put paid to this very specious statement. It isn't about defining a term so that it represents my preferred mode of play -- it cannot be this because I'm currently, willingly, playing a game that this term, which I argue for, is not represented at all.

The continued argument is just a veiled ad hom -- you aren't addressing the arguments I've made, but instead cast this as intentional use of a loaded term by someone trying to denigrate your playstyle. This is absolutely false -- I learned to play in your style, and have fond memories of it. It isn't a stranger to me, even if I've largely moved on and adopted different play. I have zero reason to denigrate that play. I do have reason to promote other approaches, though, which is often characterized by you as denigration of your play, as if other forms of play somehow discount your own. It's a silly defensive posture you adopt in these discussion, an approach that this is war, and any ground given, even to a term that describes play you dislike because it means you can't use it to describe your play, must be fought without quarter. It's silly. Here, people have a term that clearly describes a type of play where the PCs are protagonized in all ways -- the game is entirely focused on the PC's dramatic need, thus maximizing every moment to be about the PCs. A style of play you've clearly said you dislike. And yet, you're fighting to have this term defined in a way so that even Monopoly features it (choice made there develop into emergent play, and a story is told). I mean, cool.

From now on, protagonism on my end will be described as badwrongfunveryterrible play. Badwrongfunveryterrible play is where the game is focused on the dramatic needs of the PCs.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yes! Protagonism occurs when play is about the PCs dramatic needs. If I've built my world prior to the PC generation, then I'm not protagonizing the PCs in that world -- I'm building a world that doesn't care about the PCs' dramatic needs. That the player can, within that world, try to make moves that invoke their dramatic need doesn't change that the world is not a protagonistic world. What this is is agency -- the ability to make choices that matter. This isn't the same as protagonism, which is about how the entire game is structured and what it focuses on.

After this big point, which I hope we can agree on, there's lots of details about how play is generated even when nominally involving a PC dramatic need. Again, the key element here is focus. A good detail here is my example tiefling from my game -- that she will, undoubtedly, seek out the devil responsible for her family's curse, how that fiction is generated is key to evoking protagonism. For example, it's absolutely true that this devil exists in my game and will be a factor in it solely because of the PC's dramatic need. However, the adventure then only has a small amount of protagonism because it will still be almost entirely about foiling the NPC's plan which was conceived without any of the PCs in my game being created.

I would disagree completely that a world is protagonist or not. Play certainly is, but the world? I dont see a compelling argument there. I also think that your argument seems to only account for a single PC when that isnt the usual. Dramatic needs have to be worked as a set, not as a single thing taken out of context. I'd agree that game structure is key here, for sure, but that's a seperate thing IMO and something that can be deployed, or not, in many different systems and settings.