This Just In: Players Don't Like Losing PC Protagonism

[Kiero]

Originally Posted by Bartmoss

A question

How far do you take "deprotagonaisation"? Is the following an example.

You create a character, a mage, its Witchcraft. You have old soul. You discover that in a former life you released a great evil into the world. It is this evil you must now defeat.

A player ended a campaign because of the revelation I have outlined. It caused alot of hassle in the group he was playing in (they split). Was he "deprotagonised"?

It's simple - was it even discussed with the player beforehand? If not you run the risk that some people will take offense.

[rayp]

Originally Posted by nikink

I agree that it comes down to respect between all people at the game. When I play a game, I give absolute trust to the GM/ST/Person Running The Game. I've had characters kidnapped, tortured, maimed, basically screwed... sometimes my character has even been the doing it to himself for various reasons. In all cases I've been able to implicitly trust the GM and know that it was all for a reason - even if the reason was something like, maintaining the shared world's verisimilitude(sp?) above all - and in all cases I've been lucky enough, I guess, to have those games be great tales and great fun. I've never felt deprotagonised. I've probably been lucky in my GMs.

Always have a safe word.

[nikink]

My safe word, should I ever need it, not playing the game with that GM again. B-)

Like I say, I guess I must be quite lucky with my GMs over the years. This is a good thing. B-)

[Argent]

Originally Posted by perfect^inzanity

It's part of the latter, the tragic part is that EON is very popular in sweden (it's a swedish RPG). Of course to my great dismay a large part of sweden seems stuck in the 80-ties mentality when it comes to GMing mixed with the 90-ties sentiment of "it's called Roleplay not Rollplay" and "Social interaction rules suck". Add that they all suffer from One-True-Wayism. Really I use RPG.net as a huge teddy bear every time I am stupid enough to have wandered into a swedish rpg forum, it's that bad.

Heh heh. One visit too many to rollspel.nu?

(Edit: I agree, by the way.)

[Marvelman]

Originally Posted by Marvelman

My only issue with this is many players think almost anything is limiting their protagonism.

OH NO, a bad guy stold my sword!!! I wanna play a new character...

OH NO, a roll didn't go my way... I wanna play a new character...

OH NO, that PC is better at underwater basket weaving than me I wanna play a new charater...

It seems more and more of the guys I roll play with have a fit with almost anything that isn't them ROXXORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

Originally Posted by Kiero

Many? I don't think so.

Be careful when you contradict what MY experiences are, they are mine you know

I HAVE had many experiences with such poor players and they only seem to be growing, I've GMed players who appernetly feel deprotagonised when they lose temperary ability points or gain a negative level, so much so if the game doesn't immediately turn to releaving them of this burden they get sullen or angry, often grinding the game to a halt.

Originally Posted by Kiero

It's hardly a justification for GMs ignoring the fact that making fundamental changes to someone's character without even discussing the possibility of it happening is crass.

I hardly find any of my points as a fundamantal change to a character, but I've seen such reaction. Especially to the losing of a piece of equipment, and not some character defining heirloom mind you, often the loss of a common magical peice of equipment brings game shattering angst...

Really in most cases I agree with the OP, I'm mostly testy because now I'm almost certain to hear the "But your Deprotaganizing me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" cry next time I require a balance check to charge someone across uneven ground.

Originally Posted by Marvelman

Overcoming loss can be part of the Heroic Journey if you let it, but at least let the GM ocationally set back the party a bit for the sake of story, please.

Originally Posted by Kiero

Ugh, this isn't really aimed personally at you...

...RANT SNIPPAGE...


And there's a huge difference between "setback" and "impairment". Disabling a character is a not a setback if it means they spend most of the session, or even several sessions being a lot less capable than they were. Losing a treasured possession and spending a session to get it back is a setback.

Anyway, rant off.

Each player with have a differnt definition of setback or impairment, ultimate the GM and players must get some sort of understanding. I'm not for "gimping builds" or wild PC maiming, but I'm also for Players understanding that with reward comes risk or the game gets boring... I don't think we disagree at heart here, but for example...

When a favored chacter of mine (a fighter type) lost his weapon of some time and magic. He had to make due with a far inferior weapon for many sessions, I personally liked the story line. He had to make increasing use of some talents long left fallow. In the end he earned another weapon, and was much less one dimentional. I as a player had fun, even though without my permission the GM made me a lot less "capable" for several sessions.

[nexus]

Nothing much to add except the OP has solidified why I really didn't like the First Edtion Abyssal Charm "Artful Maiming Onslaught".

[rayp]

Originally Posted by Marvelman

Really in most cases I agree with the OP, I'm mostly testy because now I'm almost certain to hear the "But your Deprotaganizing me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" cry next time I require a balance check to charge someone across uneven ground.

Said in an Eric Cartman voice no doubt: "You're bustin' my balls, you're bustin' my balls."

[Thanatos02]

This happened to me, once. I played in a short Dragon-blooded Exalted game as an Air Immaculate monk. That's not important so much as what happened, but it does kind of explain a few things in a sec.

I missed a single game, and when I came back, my monk was blinded! I wasn't asked, or anything. He was played by another player, and got blinded in a fight with a Lunar. Now, he had a charm that allowed him to notice everything while it lasted, and it lasted for a full scene, so his combat ability wasn't really diminished, but noone really asked me if that was cool, and I wasn't even there for that game. It seemed like a low-blow to me.

Now, cool blind monk seemed like a neat concept, but it wasn't the concept that I had been playing with. It went from a character I had envisioned to one that was defined by his loss of sight in the defense of the Relm. I really didn't want to play anymore, or at least, I wanted my old monk back.

[Kiero]

Originally Posted by Marvelman

Be careful when you contradict what MY experiences are, they are mine you know

As is so often said here, the plural of anecdote is not data. Something else to consider - players do not operate in a vaccuum. In addition to previous experiences, their experience with you "teaches" them how to play in your games.

Originally Posted by Marvelman

I HAVE had many experiences with such poor players and they only seem to be growing, I've GMed players who appernetly feel deprotagonised when they lose temperary ability points or gain a negative level, so much so if the game doesn't immediately turn to releaving them of this burden they get sullen or angry, often grinding the game to a halt.

Back when I used to play and run AD&D, I never thought loss of ability points or levels (even "temporary" - how long is temporary?) was fine. Especially because without any discussion of the fact, how are we to know it's "only temporary"?

Levels especially - that's a significant loss of capability which has to be done all over again. In any case I don't play games anywhere near as complex any more.

Originally Posted by Marvelman

I hardly find any of my points as a fundamantal change to a character, but I've seen such reaction. Especially to the losing of a piece of equipment, and not some character defining heirloom mind you, often the loss of a common magical peice of equipment brings game shattering angst...

Really in most cases I agree with the OP, I'm mostly testy because now I'm almost certain to hear the "But your Deprotaganizing me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" cry next time I require a balance check to charge someone across uneven ground.

Loss of ability scores and levels are significant. Losing limbs and organs are fundamental. Loss of items, less so, but then I've never been attached to stuff, nor built characters around unique items, nor been part of the 3.0 onwards assumption that every character must have magic items as part of their "build". But that said, some people do consider unique items a part of their concept, so if you understand that the player in question does, you should have a little respect for that.

Originally Posted by Marvelman

Each player with have a differnt definition of setback or impairment, ultimate the GM and players must get some sort of understanding. I'm not for "gimping builds" or wild PC maiming, but I'm also for Players understanding that with reward comes risk or the game gets boring... I don't think we disagree at heart here, but for example...

Which is why you discuss these things with them beforehand, and give them options.

We do disagree at heart, because I don't find maiming a PC without their consent acceptable ever. I don't buy the idea that there must be "risk" in terms of being savaged for a game to be "interesting". Same as I've never bought into the idea that the ultimate risk is character death.

Originally Posted by Marvelman

When a favored chacter of mine (a fighter type) lost his weapon of some time and magic. He had to make due with a far inferior weapon for many sessions, I personally liked the story line. He had to make increasing use of some talents long left fallow. In the end he earned another weapon, and was much less one dimentional. I as a player had fun, even though without my permission the GM made me a lot less "capable" for several sessions.

Well again that's nice that you feel that way and didn't have a problem with it. Not everyone is you. It's simple courtesy to consider that other people deal with these things in different ways, and talk to players about such things rather than just imposing them.

When a player's only investment and source of fun in a game is through the agency of their character, it pays to show a little respect for that.

[Jim Bob]

Yes, the GM controls the setting, and the players control their characters.

But the two interact, so there's a bit of overlap. Where the setting and the characters overlap, well, that's the "rules for resolution of actions," and also, "the GM's rulings."

So with that overlap, where it's supposed to be that the GM controls the setting and the players their characters, but someone steps over the line forward or backwards, that's where you get

• the players say the GM is pushing them around (GM trying to control setting, and characters). Sometimes called "railroading" or "killer GM" or "wannabe novelist GM."
• the players say the GM is giving them nothing to work with (GM tries to control neither setting, nor the characters). Sometimes called "boring GM."
• the GM says the players are pushing them around (players trying to control both setting and their characters). Sometimes called "rules lawyers", "noisy bastards", or "too active players."
• the GM says the players are giving them nothing to work with (players trying to control neither the setting nor their characters). Sometimes called "boring players."

Exactly where the line lies depends on the individual and their tastes. For example, when I was beginning to run a new campaign, I found images the players could use as character illustrations. One player said, "thank you, that's perfect!" But another player said, "yes that is the right kind of image, but I must choose my own," while still another player said, "I choose my own image, why are you even sending me this message?!!" and was angry.

So each group has to find where everyone's "lines" are.

"Protoganism" is too long a word. And "deprotagonise" sounds like Lt. Geordi or Scottie "reversing the polarity" or some shit. Let's talk simple and stuff