Why we love D&D but hate d20

[Desdichado]

Yes, but your comparison to a show that is named for one of the main characters, who clearly is the star while the others are not is not an example of what I'm talking about. I've never been in an RPG group in which only one player was a protagonist. At least not at all times.

And if you make the argument that the protagonist shifts throughout the story, then you've kinda sidestepped and tried too hard to force observed reality to fit the theory, IMO. I don't think there's much value in that.

The biggest problem, though, is that RPGs, being games (and not stories per se) do not necessarily benefit from following narrative theory. What makes a good novel does not make a good RPG session and vice versa. Clearly, there is some overlap, but there's also some significant differences.

And focusing the campaign on a single protagonist character is one of the main significant differences between the two.

 

[d4]

gee, we've been playing RPGs with every character considered a protagonist for the past 20+ years and never knew we were doing it wrong the whole time!!!!

like Joshua said, trying to apply narrative theory to role-playing isn't necessarily going to work.

the only time i played in a campaign where one character was clearly the protagonist and everyone else was there to support her -- i left after a few sessions, because it wasn't fun for anyone else.

 

[Desdichado]

d4, the more of your posts I see, the more I think we think an awful lot alike...

 

[d4]

d4, the more of your posts I see, the more I think we think an awful lot alike...

i've been thinking that for a while, JD, but that's only because you have like 5,500 more posts than me.

 

[takyris]

Ditto J-D-Jazzy-Dyal and my pyramidal d4-compadre. Unless I'm XXX, I ain't playing in the "XXX Show".

Unless possibly it's an Inspector-Gadget-like show in which XXX is actually utterly useless, and it's really the hard work of everyone else that gets the job done, while XXX himself manages to steal the credit every time in Zapp Brannagan-like fashion.

Yeah, I'd play in that.

"Hurry up and disarm the acid-spewing space cockroaches, Kif -- I have to attend the Intergalactic Beach Volleyball Post-Tournament Party tonight as a guest of honor, and you haven't given me my bikini wax yet!"

 

[Sir Elton]

Yes, but your comparison to a show that is named for one of the main characters, who clearly is the star while the others are not is not an example of what I'm talking about. I've never been in an RPG group in which only one player was a protagonist. At least not at all times.

And if you make the argument that the protagonist shifts throughout the story, then you've kinda sidestepped and tried too hard to force observed reality to fit the theory, IMO. I don't think there's much value in that.

Joshua, you've got the Main Character and the Protagonist mixed up.

A Main Character is the player through whom the audience experiences the story first hand.

A Protagonist is the prime mover of the plot.

A Hero is a combination of both Main Character and Protagonist.

In other words, a hero is a blended character who does two jobs: move the plot forward and serve as a surrogate for the audience. When we consider all the characters other than a Protagonist who might serve as the audience's position in a story, suddenly the concept of a hero becomes severely limited. It is not wrong, just limited.

(Dramatica Book, page 26, The Elements of Structure: Character).

In Dragonlance, the Main Character was separated from Sturm Brightblade, the story's Protagonist, and was given to Raistlin, the story's Skeptic. Raistlin was the main character of the whole Dragonlance series, while his brother, Caramon, impacted on him.

In a Roleplaying Game, everyone has the Role of the Main Character (based on individual perspective. To the DM, the Dungeon is a main character), however everyone acts as an Impact Character towards each other (the characters change each other in some way).

Through his own Main Character, the player experiences story he is creating with the other players on the inside. They are experiencing a battle, a healing, and planning as if they were participating in it. The Paladin leads the party, the Wizard provides knowledge, the Fighter states that his weapons are the only things he believes in him; all from a player character's perspective.

The other player characters potentially provide the Impact Character perspective. They provide an alternate path. The rogue's Machiavellian modus operandi is challenged by the Paladin's beliefs in Law and Good; The Druid's act of maintaining the balance in natural forces is challenged by the Wizard's ability to manipulate the natural forces around him. The Cleric's belief in his God is challenged by the Fighter's disbelief. They all Impact on each other.

The DM sees both the Overall Storyline and the Main Character Storyline through the eyes of the Dungeon. While everyone creates the Subjective storyline: the story of how all the players interact in the roleplaying game. As a result, the Myth is created and the story gets told.

As I described above is what makes the Roleplaying Game different from other mediums. Everyone is not necessarily the Protagonist. However, everyone and the Dungeon through their own perspective is a Main Character. Everyone and everything acts as Impact Characters toward each other. As a result, the Subjective Storyline follows it's own path.

Roleplaying is the same as regular storytelling. Everyone plays a part, not necessarily the same part, but a part. Everyone are main characters in their own perspective. Everyone Impacts each other, everyone creates the subjective storyline as they play. While the DM provides the Objective Storyline.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Yes, but your comparison to a show that is named for one of the main characters, who clearly is the star while the others are not is not an example of what I'm talking about. I've never been in an RPG group in which only one player was a protagonist. At least not at all times.

I would agree that Buffy is a bad example of this theory and relating it (a story centered on one character) to an RPG (a group event). A better analogy to me would be ST:TNG, in which the characters routinely exchange what character type they are depending on the story-line and focus of the episode.

And if you make the argument that the protagonist shifts throughout the story, then you've kinda sidestepped and tried too hard to force observed reality to fit the theory, IMO. I don't think there's much value in that.

I wouldn't think so because, over the course of many tales, this focus is indeed common. Even the fantasy-epic of Arthur has this: Uthur is the focus, then Arthur is the focus, and then Lancelot, and then Gallahad, and then back to Arthur (note: this mirror's my favored version of the epic, other versions feature this shift differently; Mists of Avalon, for example, focuses first on Ygrain and then on Morganna).

The biggest problem, though, is that RPGs, being games (and not stories per se) do not necessarily benefit from following narrative theory. What makes a good novel does not make a good RPG session and vice versa. Clearly, there is some overlap, but there's also some significant differences.

The fundamental purpose of an RPG is to provide functional game mechanics in which to resolve situations that arise in role-play. Remove the story-line function of an RPG and all you have left is number-crunching and monster bashing (like Heroclicks or whatever that game is called), which might make a fun game for some, but is it really an RPG?

Consequently, what makes a good novel often makes for an excellent campaign. I'll continue this line of thought in a moment...

And focusing the campaign on a single protagonist character is one of the main significant differences between the two.

This I agree with; I certainly wouldn't want to play in a game where I was constantly playing second-banana to another PC. However, as a gamer, I realize that some story lines within a campaign will focus on other characters (often single individuals) while everyone else is there to support, assist, and aid that character in accomplishing a specific goal. Insisting that it cannot happen this way is essentially the same as saying "If it isn't equally important to everyone, it shouldn't be important to anyone".

For example, let's say I'm in a game and one of the other players has a Druid. During some point, the Druid gets called to a grove to speak to some big-wig Druid. During this session, I don't expect to be very important. It's just the facts of the matter: I (my PC) accompanied his friend (the Druid) to a Druidic meeting (of which I am a 5th wheel). Some might wail against such a session, but I can't really imagine why. After all, later on in the campaign, my PC might be part of a War Councle, discussing tactics, weapons, supplies, logistics, etc., with other military-styled NPCs, during which the Druid is the one accompanying me.

To be honest, I really can't conceive of a game where such things didn't happen in such a manner. To me, that is entirely part of the experience. An individual scenario, encounter, or adventure might place any single PC into the Protagonist role, but over the course of a campaign, there are a multitude of scenarios, encounters, and adventures that should provide each PC the opportunity to portray the Protagonist.

Let me give a few examples:

Adventure #1: I learn of an ancestral blade that was wielded by my great grandfather. If I retrieve the blade, it will acknowledge me as the heir to a barony. I go on a quest to retrieve it and my friends accompany me. I am the Protagonist while the rest of the group fulfills the other roles.

Adventure #2: The party Wizard learns of a required Power Component to create a magic item. He quests to find and acquire this item. He is the protagonist while the rest of the group (including myself) fulfill the other roles.

Adventure #3: The party Druid learns of an ancient relic that will stop a horrible wilting that is plagueing the land. He quests to recover the relic. He is the protagonist while the rest of the group (once more, including me) fulfill the other roles.

Ideally, the PCs should all be friends and allies. If this is true, then the GM should not need to invent Protagonistic motivations for every PC in the group; their friendship should provide enough cohesion to the group and the assumption of these various character types will occur naturally.

 

[Sir Elton]

This I agree with; I certainly wouldn't want to play in a game where I was constantly playing second-banana to another PC. However, as a gamer, I realize that some story lines within a campaign will focus on other characters (often single individuals) while everyone else is there to support, assist, and aid that character in accomplishing a specific goal. Insisting that it cannot happen this way is essentially the same as saying "If it isn't equally important to everyone, it shouldn't be important to anyone".

Ideally, the PCs should all be friends and allies. If this is true, then the GM should not need to invent Protagonistic motivations for every PC in the group; their friendship should provide enough cohesion to the group and the assumption of these various character types will occur naturally.

Thanks. You've taken my Argument to the logical next level. Joshua, what this guy says is right. By roleplaying through the campaign, each player character can become as complex or more complex than other characters. It's just that in a typical Dungeon Crawl, say Forge of Fury, the player characters may revert to their preconcieved roles.

Although I doubt any Antagonistic dungeons that the DM can come up with will be different. Although if the player characters are fighting against one person, a villian perhaps, then you will see some change and complexity.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Kae,

I offer my applause and thanks. But combatting a Troll is pointless unless you're doing it with fire or acid.

And I went out of scrolls of flaming post. Too bad.

Leave the genius be. You're just encouraging him.

Yeah, sorry, I got carried away. I apologize for feeding the troll. Won't happen again

 

[ph0rk]

Roleplaying is the same as regular storytelling. Everyone plays a part, not necessarily the same part, but a part. Everyone are main characters in their own perspective. Everyone Impacts each other, everyone creates the subjective storyline as they play. While the DM provides the Objective Storyline.

I do not agree; and disagree with storytelling/writing as a metaphor for RPGs in general.

Roleplaying is -not- the same as regular storytelling because many of the tricks that make a good story don't translate well to an RPG. Roleplaying is roleplaying; you're playing out a role with a varying amount of meta-knowledge about the world physics and plot. The amount of meta-knowledge you use is dependent on the situation; keeping the group together, etc.

Player characters (metgame or otherwise) seek out challenge; in most story types the challenges sought by the characters are secondary; it is the challenges thrust upon the characters by fate that matter and make for an engaging narrative. Too much of this in an RPG can easily become railroading.

I would never even use the terms "Protagonist" or "Main Character" in an RPG; every player and every player character is special. They come to decisions as a group and work towards their goals that way. A role playing game is less a story than it is a shared hallucination if you will. Or an excellent mechanism for creating and delivering witty one-liners while playing a wargame

If, however, I were forced to pick a story metaphor to fit role playing games; it would be character driven over event-driven. Ultimately it is the actions of the player characters that give the world its meaning and the 'story' its shape. Any attempt to make things event driven (in the classical creative writing sense) ends up as railroading. (This is not to be confused with coming up with fabulous events to throw characters for a loop.)

IMHO thinking of the pcs in terms like protagonist and supporting character will ultimately lead to spotlighting, which is never fun for everyone outside the spotlight.