Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8234264" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, I know that, I was specifically referring to the PCs being players in the story, as in referencing players in a play.&nbsp; I haven't made the mistake of confusing the two, so this isn't a telling vector of critique.As for your latter point, no, it means that the setting's dramatic needs have a higher priority than the PCs'.&nbsp; If the PC's backstory, outside of genre conventions or established shared fiction, contradicts something in the GM's notes, and the GM requires it to be changed, then what's in the GM's notes is taking on the protagonist role, here -- the story is about that thing, and the PC has to adapt to this.&nbsp; If the player chooses a dramatic need that happens to precisely dovetail with the GM's notes such that it is a focus of play, then, sure, you have accidental protagonism.&nbsp; I'm not talking about accidental or coincidental protagonism, though, I'm speaking to protagonism as a way to play.For instance, in my current 5e game, one of the players presented a backstory about how her family is cursed due to a past deal with a devil (the PC is a tiefling), and that her PC's goal is to confront that devil and end the curse.&nbsp; Now, it just so happens that a good part of Descent into Avernus is about dealing with devils, so this aligns well.&nbsp; I don't, however, consider this alignment protagonism, because the player could have chosen something else and nothing about the setting/AP would have changed.&nbsp; The alignment is accidental (and fortuitous), but not protagonism, because the dramatic needs of DiA aren't the PCs, but the NPCs.&nbsp; It's the NPCs plans and actions that drive the AP, the PCs just react to these and choose how they want to deal with them.&nbsp; The city of Elturel being dragged into Hell is not about the PCs at all, but play will absolutely be about what these PCs choose to do about it.&nbsp; This is agency, not protagonism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8234264, member: 16814"] Yes, I know that, I was specifically referring to the PCs being players in the story, as in referencing players in a play. I haven't made the mistake of confusing the two, so this isn't a telling vector of critique. As for your latter point, no, it means that the setting's dramatic needs have a higher priority than the PCs'. If the PC's backstory, outside of genre conventions or established shared fiction, contradicts something in the GM's notes, and the GM requires it to be changed, then what's in the GM's notes is taking on the protagonist role, here -- the story is about that thing, and the PC has to adapt to this. If the player chooses a dramatic need that happens to precisely dovetail with the GM's notes such that it is a focus of play, then, sure, you have accidental protagonism. I'm not talking about accidental or coincidental protagonism, though, I'm speaking to protagonism as a [I]way to play[/I]. For instance, in my current 5e game, one of the players presented a backstory about how her family is cursed due to a past deal with a devil (the PC is a tiefling), and that her PC's goal is to confront that devil and end the curse. Now, it just so happens that a good part of Descent into Avernus is about dealing with devils, so this aligns well. I don't, however, consider this alignment protagonism, because the player could have chosen something else and [I]nothing about the setting/AP would have changed[/I]. The alignment is accidental (and fortuitous), but not protagonism, because the dramatic needs of DiA aren't the PCs, but the NPCs. It's the NPCs plans and actions that drive the AP, the PCs just react to these and choose how they want to deal with them. The city of Elturel being dragged into Hell is not about the PCs at all, but play will absolutely be about what these PCs choose to do about it. This is agency, not protagonism. [/QUOTE]

Verification