Quote from: Exploderwizard;869113Some players are more casual and show up more to socialize than anything else. If a player isn't interested in learning from mistakes made and does not care about improving his/her playing skills then the last thing I'm going to worry about is how deprotagonized they feel.

While "how deprotagonized they feel" isn't the last thing I'd worry about (I can come up with a really extensive list of things to worry about), it wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my list. And you raise a good point that for gamers who aren't interested in getting better at tactics/playing skills, expecting that they will improve is an exercise in frustration for everyone.

Eh, requiring the player to become a system guru to enjoy himself doesn't quite cut it for me. I regularly see people here talk about not even expecting their players to know the rules and just having them react in-character and in-universe, then translating their actions into the game. That kind of play isn't going to mesh with the expectation of them becoming rule lawyers.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;869143Eh, requiring the player to become a system guru to enjoy himself doesn't quite cut it for me. I regularly see people here talk about not even expecting their players to know the rules and just having them react in-character and in-universe, then translating their actions into the game. That kind of play isn't going to mesh with the expectation of them becoming rule lawyers.

Those aren't all the same people saying all the same things.

There are two things that shouldn't be confused. (Though there may be some overlap between the two.)

   1) Mastery of system.

2) Mastery of tactics.

OD&D could easily be played intelligently by a player who had the latter, but not the former (i.e. a decent tactician unfamiliar with the system mechanics). Runequest 2 also worked that way to some extent, though the ubiquity of minor magic required some system understanding. Some other games, e.g. D&D 3E and 4E wouldn't work as well in this way since all the system widgets (feats, daily powers, etc.) require some system understanding or mastery to facilitate intelligent play. And since some of those widgets aren't all that much like real world tactics, if one can only master one of those two things, a player in 3E/4E will probably play more intelligently with only system mastery than with only real world tactical mastery.

People that play a game where there is a good mapping between tactics that make sense in the real world and tactics that make sense in the game world can get by with natural language and system-agnostic real world tactical decisions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;869143Eh, requiring the player to become a system guru to enjoy himself doesn't quite cut it for me. I regularly see people here talk about not even expecting their players to know the rules and just having them react in-character and in-universe, then translating their actions into the game. That kind of play isn't going to mesh with the expectation of them becoming rule lawyers.

:banghead:

Quote from: Bren;869155Those aren't all the same people saying all the same things.

There are two things that shouldn't be confused. (Though there may be some overlap between the two.)

   1) Mastery of system.

2) Mastery of tactics.

OD&D could easily be played intelligently by a player who had the latter, but not the former (i.e. a decent tactician unfamiliar with the system mechanics). Runequest 2 also worked that way to some extent, though the ubiquity of minor magic required some system understanding. Some other games, e.g. D&D 3E and 4E wouldn't work as well in this way since all the system widgets (feats, daily powers, etc.) require some system understanding or mastery to facilitate intelligent play. And since some of those widgets aren't all that much like real world tactics, if one can only master one of those two things, a player in 3E/4E will probably play more intelligently with only system mastery than with only real world tactical mastery.

People that play a game where there is a good mapping between tactics that make sense in the real world and tactics that make sense in the game world can get by with natural language and system-agnostic real world tactical decisions.

Thank you for illustrating this critical difference.  I was losing patience.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;869188Thank you for illustrating this critical difference.  I was losing patience.

Ah yes, a feeling I know well. You are most welcome.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;869083How can they change it? It's not like you can snap your fingers and acquire system mastery over night.

It's not about "system mastery." It's about strategic skill. REMOVE all knowledge of 'system' and you'll see where the rubber really hits the road.

They can change it with practice that takes more than snapping and snoozing. For goodness' sake, that's the same with pretty much every game worth playing once you're out of diapers enough to move on from Snakes and Ladders.

Quote from: Telarus;868308It seems what we are actually talking about here is "de-protagonism"**, i.e. removing a _player's_ opportunities to meaningfully change the game-world. This is a breakdown in the social contract of RPGs, but isn't a mechanics problem unless the GM and players allow it to be one.


**You ever watch some-body whip the floor with some-one in a 2 player "fighter" video-game? 100+ Combo Chains and crap like that? And the 2nd player can only just stand there and futilely wave this control-stick and tap buttons the whole round, but it's not really doing anything in-game? Yeah, that's "de-protagonism".

What in the name of Burl Ives' left nut does "de-protaginism" mean?

Quote from: Lunamancer;869095Riddle me this.

Every time we've included NPC underlings in the party--and I'm talking about NPCs who are only there to help out the PCs, who follow commands, who are far inferior stat-wise, and so forth--without fail, at least one of them ends up effecting the outcome of the game in a meaningful way.

It's not like Joe the Fighter vs Fred the Fighter, only Joe is a level lower, or doesn't have Fred's exceptional strength. It's like Joe is 1st level with all average stats and Fred is 6th level with above average to high stats. In other words, it's a disparity to a degree we'd never actually see among PCs.

As for player skill, again, these NPCs don't have that individual drive of PCs. Typically, they're used as just a column of combat stats taking their turn. In other words, in terms of choice, strategy, motives, ideas and so forth, they're far below a low-skilled player.

And despite all that, they still have an impact. And at least one even comes to stand out. Sometimes the players just like the guy's name.

So if this is possible with all the odds set against it, how is it ever possible that a player with even low-skill playing even a poorly built character with lower stats than the rest of the group is rendered unable to effect the game world?

It's not that they can't. It's for whatever reason they don't.

I've done quite well as a player, taking over a henchman or hireling (and in a couple of cases, taking over monsters and animals with the party). I say this, not to brag about how awesome I am as a player, but to point out that a PC doesn't have to be the star of the show to contribute.

I have always been of the opinion that just as any football coach will tell you he can't have too many quality pass rushers, a party can seldom have too many quality PCs (unless there's a hard upper limit for the number of players/PCs). So there's an extra cleric... Big deal.

Quote from: Elfdart;869570I've done quite well as a player, taking over a henchman or hireling (and in a couple of cases, taking over monsters and animals with the party). I say this, not to brag about how awesome I am as a player, but to point out that a PC doesn't have to be the star of the show to contribute.

Of course, there is an element of subjectivity to it. You could be the player who tips the pizza guy and still be an important contribution to the evening's game. So the issue is two fold. 1) Can the player/character contribute? And 2) is the contribution perceived as "significant" by the player?

The answer to #1 is an unqualified yes. It could only ever be "No" in theory, or in the beliefs of an overly-negative player. In the case of theory, I would simply say the theory is wrong or is bad theory. In the case of a negative player, I would suggest the real problem isn't that someone took his shtick but rather it's the negative attitude itself.

As for #2, it becomes a problem when they player's expectations become unrealistic. Yes, not all expectations are equally valid. Some people, petty as it sounds, really do feel slighted if god forbid another player should have an additional moment to shine. That would be an example of unrealistic expectations. It doesn't have to be lofty. I would call an expectation unrealistic--or perhaps unreasonable is a better word--if getting yours means someone else's needs to be put on pause for a bit.

Outside of that? Yes, your moment will come to you, even if only by dumb luck. And it doesn't become any less substantial just because someone else had two or three in the time it took for you to have one.

Quote from: Elfdart;869567What in the name of Burl Ives' left nut does "de-protaginism" mean?

The idea is that an RPG should be like a book or movie with the PCs filling the role of protagonists.  If they aren't the equivalent of the main characters in a book or TV series, they are said to have been "de-protagonized" or robbed of "real agency".  In concrete terms, it's a fandom created term with no real meaning.  Everyone who uses it mean something a bit different by it.

Quote from: Elfdart;869570I have always been of the opinion that just as any football coach will tell you he can't have too many quality pass rushers, a party can seldom have too many quality PCs (unless there's a hard upper limit for the number of players/PCs). So there's an extra cleric... Big deal.

Hammering this revelation into some players heads is like mining granite with a mop.

More clerics = less sustained wounds and deeper delves because we are intact longer. And more undead popping.
More thieves = less falling into pits, more locked chests and doors opened.
More magic users = more detection, buffing or crowd clearing effects.
More fighters = stuff made dead faster.

Quote from: yosemitemike;869586The idea is that an RPG should be like a book or movie with the PCs filling the role of protagonists.  If they aren't the equivalent of the main characters in a book or TV series, they are said to have been "de-protagonized" or robbed of "real agency".  In concrete terms, it's a fandom created term with no real meaning.  Everyone who uses it mean something a bit different by it.

Mostly they mean "Waa the referee said no to me."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;869685Mostly they mean "Waa the referee said no to me."

Some people mean it that way.  GM didn't say yes to that overpowered thing you wanted?  De-protagonism you say?  Oh, no!  Quick!  Someone call a Waaahmbulance!

Some mean that the PCs should be like the protagonists/main characters of a lot of TV shows and book series with everything important happening where they are and all significant events revolving around them.  This is the crowd that would call a persistent world with significant events unfolding here and there that the PCs have no part in de-protagonism.  This is the crowd that doesn't want to play in licensed setting because the canonical characters are the ones who do all of the "cool stuff".  They want their PCs to be like SG-1 from Stargate SG-1 or the Charmed Ones from Charmed.  Everything important happens where they are and all significant events revolve around them right from the beginning.

Quote from: yosemitemike;869782Some people mean it that way.  GM didn't say yes to that overpowered thing you wanted?  De-protagonism you say?  Oh, no!  Quick!  Someone call a Waaahmbulance!

Some mean that the PCs should be like the protagonists/main characters of a lot of TV shows and book series with everything important happening where they are and all significant events revolving around them.  This is the crowd that would call a persistent world with significant events unfolding here and there that the PCs have no part in de-protagonism.  This is the crowd that doesn't want to play in licensed setting because the canonical characters are the ones who do all of the "cool stuff".  They want their PCs to be like SG-1 from Stargate SG-1 or the Charmed Ones from Charmed.  Everything important happens where they are and all significant events revolve around them right from the beginning.

With no snark, folks like that should play Silver Age superheroes.  Spider Man is the hero of his own comic, even though Thor could kill him with an incautious fart.

It's definitely a mentality that fits four color super heroics better than it does a game like D&D.