Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8234220" data-attributes="member: 16814">It's not part of the rules of (many) RPGs that I have to treat my pawn with any more care than I would in playing a game of Monopoly, either.&nbsp; Look the point I was making is that you can smear a term into uselessness quite easily just by ignoring some key points about what it means.&nbsp; And also that there's a lot of assumptions built into how people approach a term that cause problems.&nbsp; I see this with protagonism, which has been clearly defined numerous times in this thread, consistent with the dictionary and with clear explanations.&nbsp; And, yet, people are bringing in other assumptions to attack that definition, like claiming that being able to make choices means protagonism is present, or that since the game focuses on the players that the game then also focuses on the PCs.&nbsp; This isn't true at all.&nbsp; Play absolutely focuses on the players, because that's the nature of the game.&nbsp; A descriptor of the kind of play cannot fall back on that without being useless.&nbsp; Protagonism doesn't, because it's not about how play focuses on what the players do, but rather on if the game focuses on and around the needs of the PCs.&nbsp; If you've statted up a dungeon, then you're not focusing on the needs of the PCs, even though the game will absolutely focus on the players navigating the dungeon with their PCs.Protagonism is, fundamentally, about where the fiction starts.&nbsp; If it starts with the GM, it's not protagonism -- how could it be?&nbsp; It must start with the PCs -- by focusing on and generating content based on the PC's dramatic needs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8234220, member: 16814"] It's not part of the rules of (many) RPGs that I have to treat my pawn with any more care than I would in playing a game of Monopoly, either. Look the point I was making is that you can smear a term into uselessness quite easily just by ignoring some key points about what it means. And also that there's a lot of assumptions built into how people approach a term that cause problems. I see this with protagonism, which has been clearly defined numerous times in this thread, consistent with the dictionary and with clear explanations. And, yet, people are bringing in other assumptions to attack that definition, like claiming that being able to make choices means protagonism is present, or that since the game focuses on the players that the game then also focuses on the PCs. This isn't true at all. Play absolutely focuses on the players, because that's the nature of the game. A descriptor of the kind of play cannot fall back on that without being useless. Protagonism doesn't, because it's not about how play focuses on what the players do, but rather on if the game focuses on and around the needs of the PCs. If you've statted up a dungeon, then you're not focusing on the needs of the PCs, even though the game will absolutely focus on the players navigating the dungeon with their PCs. Protagonism is, fundamentally, about where the fiction starts. If it starts with the GM, it's not protagonism -- how could it be? It must start with the PCs -- by focusing on and generating content based on the PC's dramatic needs. [/QUOTE]

Verification