Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8234057" data-attributes="member: 16814">I disagree.&nbsp; A protagonist is the lead character -- the absolute focus of the story.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; Of course there's no protagonism there.&nbsp; That story doesn't revolve around the character.There's no redefinition, here.&nbsp; You take the straight English word and look at the game and see who and what it focuses on.&nbsp; And, like [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER], I play both sides of the fence, here.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I don't have any problem with this, and play is fun!&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That's a great way to have fun!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8234057, member: 16814"] 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? Nope. Of course there's no protagonism there. That story doesn't revolve around the character. 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 [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER], 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! [/QUOTE]

Verification