Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8235831" data-attributes="member: 16814">So, this is a well made statement that goes to one of the points that seems to be being missed:&nbsp; protagonism isn't the meeting of a PC's dramatic needs, it's the focus upon them.&nbsp; The point you're making here is that a PC might have some dramatic need(s), and that in a GM curated world that PC might still be able to, either with or without GM assistance, fulfill those needs.&nbsp; This is absolutely true.&nbsp; However, the point of protagonism isn't that a dramatic need is fulfilled, else that would just be talked about as fulfilling dramatic needs.&nbsp; Instead, the point has been that protagonism is where the game's point, it's focus, what it does in almost every moment, is about the dramatic needs of the PCs.&nbsp; It's not &quot;did you fulfill your character's personal quest,&quot; but rather, &quot;was play focused entirely on your character's personal quest?&quot;This is really why it's been strange, to me, to see people claiming that they have protagonism in their games, because PCs can pursue personal goals or dramatic needs, because this isn't really what defines protagonism -- it is necessary, but not sufficient.&nbsp; Instead, the kind of play that protagonism engenders is specifically the kind of play that many of these posters have clearly said they dislike or do not want to try.&nbsp; So, thanks for this clear statement, because it really goes to the heart, I think, of this confusion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8235831, member: 16814"] So, this is a well made statement that goes to one of the points that seems to be being missed: protagonism isn't the meeting of a PC's dramatic needs, it's the [I]focus upon them[/I]. The point you're making here is that a PC might have some dramatic need(s), and that in a GM curated world that PC might still be able to, either with or without GM assistance, fulfill those needs. This is absolutely true. However, the point of protagonism isn't that a dramatic need is fulfilled, else that would just be talked about as fulfilling dramatic needs. Instead, the point has been that protagonism is where the game's point, it's focus, what it does in almost every moment, is about the dramatic needs of the PCs. It's not "did you fulfill your character's personal quest," but rather, "was play focused entirely on your character's personal quest?" This is really why it's been strange, to me, to see people claiming that they have protagonism in their games, because PCs can pursue personal goals or dramatic needs, because this isn't really what defines protagonism -- it is necessary, but not sufficient. Instead, the kind of play that protagonism engenders is specifically the kind of play that many of these posters have clearly said they dislike or do not want to try. So, thanks for this clear statement, because it really goes to the heart, I think, of this confusion. [/QUOTE]

Verification