NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 8234282" data-attributes="member: 48965">I tend to have session 0 for all games I play now to avoid this thing but that said if it did happen...No I don't.  "Protagonism" is something explored through your character so until said character is established in the fiction, there is no protagonism to allow.  I would ask does this apply to the other side of the coin as well?  If I have a concept that is totally unsuitable for say a game of Blades in the Dark... is asking me to fall in line with the game an act of not allowing "protagonism"?  It depends.  If it's blatant disregard of what we discussed in session zero... no I don't regret not accommodating it.  If it's a misunderstanding or we didn't discuss it, I do regret it and I will try my hardest to fit their concept in if not then I will try to come to a compromise we both find acceptable (one of the reasons I like D&D is because it's usually not hard to come to some type of compromise in this area).The setting is the setting, again session zero this is what we as a group decided to play, and one player bringing an inappropriate concept to play with does not, IMO, mean the setting should be changed to accommodate said concept, especially if you have buy in and aligned concepts from the rest of your group.  Now if the majority of the group does this it's time to have a candid conversation about whether there was a misunderstanding in session zero or if this is the game/setting we really want to play in.  If it's not, then it's time to find something else we are all excited about.  I don't think a willingness to change the setting based on a players concept speaks to "protagonism" in the game at all, I think it speaks to whether expectations and social contracts were set and agreed upon properly.  Again I ask... if I as a player come to BitD with a concept that has nothing to do with criminals in a dark fantasy city does it say anything about in game "protagonism" if the GM doesn't change the setting of BitD to accommodate me? I probably sound like a broken record but session zero for the win, this is the time to vet these multiple concepts, goals, dramatic needs, etc to make sure they don't create an unviable situation to run for the GM. Something I've learned from looking at many of the games being specifically touted as promoting "protagonism" is that it's easier to run if one creates an overarching premise that all characters have to be tied into... again examples are BitD (all criminals in a gang together), The Spire (Drow revolutionaires fighting the good fight), Band of Blades (Soldiers in a retreating army trying to make it to safety), DitV (Mormon-esque gunslingers dealing with sin)... and so on.  So I would say creating this overarching premise or theme before character creation would either avoid some of the difficulty or help tremendously with it.    Of course this is why I have such a hard time with the premise that protagonism is tied into whether a players inappropriate character concept should cause a change to the setting or vice versa.  Most of the games I've seen that are indicated as promoting "protagonism" are very specific in their premise and setting details.</blockquote>

Verification