anyway.



thread: 2006-01-24 : Still More Character Ownership

On 2006-01-24, Jason L Blair wrote:

Hey Vincent,

First, I want to say that, YES! Playing a supporting castmember can be great fun. (I address character role explicitly in NORMAL, TEXAS.)

I’m not sold on your point (not that you have to sell me, o’course):

Now, to get it out of the way, I’m not talking about character ownership AT ALL. I’m speaking strictly about the fact you have X number of folks around a table and Y characters (Y may equal X, may not) and Z structure to place within a shared imaginative space.

Most games define that X = players + GM, Y = PCs + NPCs, and Z = PCs are focus. Protagonism rises and swells with the challenges placed in front of the group. Certain challenges and/or scenarios allow certain PCs to shine.

Some games hold X and Y as above but value Z on a rotation. PTA, f’r instance, where certain episodes will be focused on a certain character or character dynamic.

What I’m seeing in your assertion is that X = players, Y = pool of characters (partially or wholly owned by an individual or the group), but Z = what? I’m seeing Z = Tell a story until a protagonist arises contextually/consensually. In hard practice, I’m seeing: Dominant player tells story; others twiddle fingers.

Now, I may be misreading your assertion, and how you define “fiction defining role.” I dunno, very possible. If so, please correct me.



 

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":