battle Wear vs. Town Wear

[Ice9]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

So if a player were wearing armor that was, say, OIF, it could be expected that the point break he got for making his defense a focus could come up and it would not be considered deprotagnization since the player choose to use OIF.

It doesn't apply directly in this case, except to the extent that railroading is a form of deprotagonization, and putting characters at a disadvantage (like being unarmed) is a tool sometimes used for railroading.

[Curufea]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I'm not a fan of railroading.

I am a fan of consequences.

[SteveZilla]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

"Deprotagonize" is used on some boards to mean "taking away a player's control over his character"' date=' usually by means of some kind of personality mechanic. Wouldn't apply to Disadvantages/Complications because the player takes those voluntarily, and knows (or should know) their consequences. If the GM says to you, "You feel hungry, let me roll your EGO roll..." "Looky there, you missed. You immediately go for the large pile of food right there in front of you..." that's deprotagonization.[/quote']

 

Thanks, Chris. Yeah, something that blatant would really P!$$ me off. I've called it other things as well, like the aforementioned railroading, and "PC-Jacking" (think carjacking), and obliquely saying "So you have changed your title from GM/DM to PM?" And when I get the inevitable blank look, I reply "Pupper Master".

 

It can take more subtle forms, IMO. from Hero System (and general gaming experiences), I was used to defining my character's immediate family (spouse, parents, and kids) -- or lack thereof. I played a Paladin in a D&D game and the GM decided to make my parents part of the local drug cartel & worshippers of an evil diety.

 

I was like wtf? So I tried to work with it, and it didn't work out very well.

[torchwolf]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

Thanks' date=' Chris. Yeah, something that blatant would really P!$$ me off. I've called it other things as well, like the aforementioned railroading, and "PC-Jacking" (think carjacking), and obliquely saying "So you have changed your title from GM/DM to PM?" And when I get the inevitable blank look, I reply "Pupper Master".[/quote']

In the old Golden Heroes game, the Scenario Supervisor was aptly abbreviated.

In some reviews, There Was Much Rejoicing (yaaay) over this.

 

It can take more subtle forms, IMO. from Hero System (and general gaming experiences), I was used to defining my character's immediate family (spouse, parents, and kids) -- or lack thereof. I played a Paladin in a D&D game and the GM decided to make my parents part of the local drug cartel & worshippers of an evil diety.

 

I was like wtf? So I tried to work with it, and it didn't work out very well.

*turns up "Hang the DJ" and replaces a letter mentally*

[Vulcan]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

By and large I let my players write their families themselves. If the leave it blank, I ask them if that means I am free to improvise. If they say yes...

[tesuji]

Re: battle Wear vs. Town Wear

 

I'm guessing:

protagonist=the hero

deprotagonize=the act of making the hero less of a hero.

 

at least that's what I'm taking from the context.

 

pretty much dead on on the contextual meaning. like many game related terms it has many different nuances.

 

In my examples, the issue is this.

 

The character is supposed to be a STAR of the "show" we call an rpg.

he is ONE of the stars because there ar other PCs.

he is appropriate for the genre and has a defined strength, emphasis or role within that genre.

in this case the example is "combat fighter" but it could just as well be master thief or wizard.

 

if i run scenes setup to deliberately REMOVE or NEUTER that strength, that focus, that emphasis while still having it be the role he plays, i am deprotagonizing him.

 

You could also simply say i am stealing his fun.

 

"the navy seal beaten up by a cook" may be funny, to everyone but the navy seal player who is suddenly doubting whether his character is worth anything.

 

On the other hand

 

"the navy seal has to baby sit a family he is protecting and deal with precocious 8 year olds running amok" will be funny likely to even him, is an actual "fish out of water" scene, and doesn't impune his character focus, doesn't take his "schtick" and spit on it.

 

Now, in a PAY THE POINTS GAME, where the player has the CHOICE of "if i pay full cost for my armor i dont suffer "out of armor scenes often enough to matter" or "if i take focus and reduce the cost I must accept out of armor scenes frequently enough to matter" that choice lies with the player and i as Gm feel no qualm whatsoever in having the guy who chose the focus lim suffer the XONSEQUENCES.

 

in a "free equipment game" where the character made no such choice, thats another story and it comes down to genre more than anything else.

 

In many" higher fantasy or even some dark fantasy the "nuts and bolts" of wearing armor and carrying weapons almost never if at all factors into the story. Its not normally a strong element of the genre. So if a player playing in a free equipment game chooses the concept of armored fighter then in my view it is OUT OF GENRE and inappropriate to impose these consequences often enough to matter, or in a situation serious enough to matter.

 

For hero purists - assume when i cost out the equipment builds in such a genre assume i did not apply focus lims. Sure that raises the cp cost but hey, its free equipment, so what? this is a "match the genre" design issue.

 

Just because its a suit of regular armor does NOT mean it has to be built with the focus lim. Whether it gets the focus lim is determined by whether or not those penalties will be applicable and reasonable within the setting.

 

So, its really not "make him pay the cponsequences of focus" because I, the GM, did not assume focus as a lim onthe build.

 

to be blunt - in how many scenes in excalibur was the knight caught outside of his armor and suffering on account of it?

 

So, to me at least, I dont like the results i often see when i script scenes to "show the drawbacks" for in genre decisions that apply directly to the character's strengths. it tends to diminish the players enjoyment and thats not my goal. i find much better results when his weaknesses are played up, not when his strengths are pissed on.