GMing - deprotagonising

[janewilliams20]

Found this link in Coridan's LJ.

An interesting discussion, and made me think about my own GMing (and what I've objected to in other GMs in the past).

I don't think I deprotagonise my players. At least, I think I'm aware of the danger and try not to do so, even if I hadn't formulated the concept in so many words. By the standards of that discussion, I think I'm an extremely "soft" GM - I'm happy to hand NPCs over to player control, let them decide setting details and so on.

Given the Swords setting (they're fairly junior members of a military organisation), it can be hard to avoid NPCs being more competent than them and giving them orders, but we usually seem to avoid having PCs upstaged. And the orders given can be arranged OOC: "what orders would you like your character to be given?.... fine, just add this bit, then go ahead and write the dialogue."

I do like my NPCs. I try not to have cardboard cut-outs, and making them fully interesting and 3D means they do need some screen time, but I hope I'm not overdoing it. Hope. I'm a writer, maybe I get carried away.

What worries me is the repeated comment in the thread that if players don't like something, they often don't say so, they just drift away. And this game keeps going awfully quiet...

At least I'm sure I'm not altering character concept on players without permission. Anything like that, we discuss in advance. Like now, when Egil (Adrian) needs some stimulus to push him towards going Devotee, but isn't sure what, and has given me permission to forcibly fail him in a contest so as to drive him into a suitable situation. What I've got in mind isn't something I'd have necessarily done without that permission, and once he's up the creek and paddle-less I'll give him a very free hand in whatever he tries to get out of it again.

Comments

[coridan.livejournal.com]

Jane,

I don't think you have anything to worry about. That original writer was feeling a bit pissy that day, and that bled into his writing. It did bring up important issues, but as far as normal tabletop gaming goes, as long as you remain in communication with your players, I think you're fine -

CB

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

I do PBeM, not tabletop, and yes, I think the conclusion I've reached is that I'm fine. But reading that thread made me think about *why* I'm fine, and thinking and understanding is always good.

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

Hi Jane!
The debate was interesting to a point, but I actually thought it was lacking two things. 1) A debate. It was more or less a succession of "yeah man, what he said" comments after the initial post (on the first page at least), and 2) I thought it seriously missed the point on a few of the examples it gave. The rape one frex. Players don't like their PCs being raped because the vast majority of them would be freaked out by it, because it is a horrific scenario that they would not to contemplate too deeply from the inside out. Deprotagonisation has precious little to do with it!
Glorantha (as you know) is rather closer to that subject than some feel comfotable with. It's difficult to handle broo in any meaningful was without confronting the issue that they are basically hordes of slavering, disease ridden rape-mosters.
Anyway. On your comments. I've never been in a game you've run, so I dunno what your style's like, but it doesn't sound a million miles away from my own style. I like low level games. Any PC in a game of mine who ends up hard enough to go toe to toe with Harrek T Beserk, and I know for sure that I'm not doing my job properly!
Take the Bison Riders RQII game I'm running just now. The PCs are seriously grunt level characters, the most junior members of the tribe that are trusted to handle sharp objects without supervision. OK, they get the occasional break because they're PCs; more Stuff Happens Near Them than the average, but they spend most of their time being subject to the whims of their elders, and bickering with one another like the teenagers their characters are. Because the group are good roleplayers, they will sometimes quite deliberately "deprotagonise" themselves, and send at least one member of the party off to get backup/a responsible adult, knowing full well that when backup arrives, the situation will like as not be taken out of their hands.
This probably doesn't sound like a good advert for my game, but in fact, it's going well. A lot of it is based on detailed character interaction, as the PCs flounder around trying to find their role in the tribe, and the world in general, and even in relation to one another. They know that sooner or later, they will break the mould, because they are PCs, and that's what PCs do, if they live long enough, but the players seem happy enough for the time being, not being the protagonists in any scheme of things larger than their own lives. Even at such a low level, as long as they have stuff to do in each session that interests them, and is relevant to them, they seem to enjoy it.
Not that I haven't had complaints. I trust my players to speak up if they don't like stuff, gobby buggers that they are! The subjects of the relative unimportance of their characters (as yet), and the fact that they are clearly not serious protagonists (as yet), are not in fact among them.
Incidentally, this post is probably longer than the total of my previous posts on LJ. Not sure whether you should feel honoured or horrified!
See you at the end of the month!

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, as "debates" go it was a bit repetitive. But there were good points there. Maybe 85% of everything is crud, but the 15% makes up for it if you're a fast reader.

I agree with you about the raped PC bit - I've had that happen to a PC of mine twice. The first time, it was unexpected, and done by another PC. The GM didn't see what all the fuss was about. I was mainly horrified by the idea that it was another PC - presumably the player identified with his character to at least some extent? I dropped the game. Second time was actually in Swords, and done as background character development as a joint effort by me and the GM. Her repressed memories from her childhood came out, and... let's just say that her father was not a nice man. But there, I was fully in control of deciding what had happened to the character, and how deeply we were going to explore it.

Swords at present isn't exactly low-level. It's more that some of the NPCs around are even higher level, and are in a position to give "obey without question or die" orders. That has to be handled carefully, and as I say, I tend to let them write their own orders and semi-control those NPCs. It worried me when I was playing, the rest of the "party" voted my PC in as their commanding officer, and from then on I was in a position to order the rest of the party around. PC to PC, fine, but player to player I felt that was potentially unfair on them. So I checked OOC each time, just in case.

But low-level - no. These are experienced Humakti mercenaries. OK, so the Warleader and Hundred-thanes of their Legion are even tougher than they are, but that doesn't make this lot wimps. Take a look at our website (http://www.herewardslegion.info/) and the Wiki therein for a better idea, but the fact that the Marble Phalanx want revenge for their champion and commanding officer may give some scale. They've done experimental hero-questing, they expect to do more. They've messed with Pavis politics. They're vampire-hunting at present: the vampire in question is ancient, and seems to ambush Humakti on the HeroPlane as a hobby, but they're after him.

Oh, and yes, long-term, I fully expect this lot to take on Harrek, and quite possibly win. Not yet, no. But in the future, why not?

We've discussed the amount of effect they want to have on Canon and Future History. I've said I'm prepared to cope with them altering it completely, but the compromise we're settling into is that all important events will happen, but in some cases *because* of their actions. Or the end result will be the same, but the route will be different, because they derail it a bit.
So the Battle of Iceland will be won by the Sartarites - what they get to alter is whether it's won by them with help from Broyan, or by Broyan despite their interference. Or by someone else, after they've killed Broyan.... no, I can't see that happening, to be fair, it's Kallyr they've got serious arguments with and might well kill off before then.

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

I started (and almost finished) writing a long reply to this, but then my machine locked up! The summary of what I said is as follows:

• I am shocked and appalled at the very idea of one PC raping another. Anyone who seriously wished to pursue such a course in a game I was running would not be invited back, nor indeed to remain any longer than they had already done.
• Why not beat Harrek? No reason not to in some games, but my own are just not that style. Most of my games tend to be very "intimate" for want of a better word, heavy on roleplaying and relatively light on combat. At the rate that PCs in my games tend to increase their stats, I would have to run it at least once a week for several years to get close. As it is, we play once a month, and I'll be impressed if more than half of the current party get to "Rune Level" before we have a change of game.
• Er...
• That's about it.

Cheers me dear, see you in... two weeks and what? Four days?

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

PCs do this. But only at times when they know you haven't saved your text anywhere.

The rape thing was in a PBeM, not F2F, but even so... and the GM had created himself a world where he could justify all women having good figures and not wearing much. I think I was best off out of it.

Swords is much more RP than combat, funnily enough. Mainly because combat is often boring routine. It gets written in as "and after you win...". And our character development in terms of numbers is about as non-standard as you can get. No points, no sums, just when it looks like narrative sense for someone to have improved, or to get a new ability, they do. Yes, I trust my players!

It's 1621: by say 1630, I'd expect them to be able to seriously think about taking on Harrek, though on a mythical level rather than a combat one.

Yes, looking forward to seeing everyone at Continuum.