tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20876091.post116163184475124540..comments2024-01-02T23:29:24.986+00:00Comments on RPG Theory Review: Weekly Review Oct. 15th to Oct. 21stMendel Schmiedekamphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15717057775759420873noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20876091.post-1161765830124733942006-10-25T08:43:00.000+00:002006-10-25T08:43:00.000+00:00Elliot, It's worth noting that my use of the word ...Elliot, <BR/><BR/>It's worth noting that my use of the word "genre" is probably a bit off from what the general usage of the word is. <BR/><BR/>Also, it's worth noting that on RPG.net I was trying to provide a way to see deprotagonization from the external shell view, rather than the inner structural view. Marco's post does a lot more of the latter, and in that sense I agree with a great deal of what he says.Brand Robinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11658773301203358929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20876091.post-1161723358741699202006-10-24T20:55:00.000+00:002006-10-24T20:55:00.000+00:00I'm pretty sure my (tentative) definition of depro...I'm pretty sure my (tentative) definition of deprotagonization is really a gloss on what other people said in the rpg.net thread I referenced. Also, I sort of rejected the idea later in the comments of my LJ, with some prodding by Marco.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, the thing I found most interesting about the discussion was the (attempted) link between "protagonization" and "genre". This implies that "protagonization" is a function of a metagame consciousness, which has a couple interesting consequences. The first is an apparent contradiction between reinforcing genre tropes--creating a story based on preconceived notions--and the ostensible goal of "narrativist" play, which is to create stories which aren't shackled by convention. The second is that the "genre" definition of "protagonization" becomes meaningless when the player has no interest in genre to begin with--unless we think of it in terms of a genre (a preconceived notion or set of tropes) being imposed on the player.<BR/><BR/>From there we can work in a number of directions. The conflict between convention and innovation isn't as great as some might suppose; freedom in a fiction relies on constraint. The trappings of "narrativist mechanics" may not, in fact, facilitate "narrativism" as canonically defined through connection to a "moral premise", and may simply be used to reproduce genre. (A possibility that was pointed out by Max Cairnduff/Balbinus a while back in <A HREF="http://ptgptb.org/0026/narrativists.html" REL="nofollow">PTGPTB</A>, reprinted from <A HREF="http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=96578" REL="nofollow">rpg.net</A>.)<BR/><BR/>This might then be relevant to the arguments over "player empowerment" that keep cropping up on rpg.net and elsewhere. I'm sure it's easy to see the sides lining up as "Narrativist" vs. "Simulationist" or "Forge" vs. "Traditional", but the debates are more about mechanics than so-called Creative Agenda. (Though I'll add the caveat that the borders of CA have never been adequately defined--as hinted by the Story Games thread you've linked above.)Elliot Wilenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09100832825053274916noreply@blogger.com