anyway.



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

On 2006-01-24, Gordon wrote:

Sigh.  Lost my post adding marginalia. Let’s try again.

Hi all.  Long time since I commented.  Diving right back in . . .

I’ve looked at this from the other end.  That is, if you are going to have personal, privledged protagonists (PPP’s? As opposed to just ‘PC’s’?), WHY?  If it adds something to the (e.g., and the only angle I’ve really looked at it from) group address of premise, what is that?  And does your design/play mesh with that?

I think (warning - loose language ahead) that there are some kinds of stories that such a method works quite well for, but I’m not sure it’s ever required and I’ll readily accept that it is in some cases a BAD idea.  But I’m not even sure how to start sorting through which fit where, and why.



 

This makes ecb go "Hi Gordon!"
Doesn't this apply to Snap?

This makes GcL go "Apply to SNAP?"
Yup - at least, by default. The design decsion in SNAP was that the story is always about what happens to a character's Characteristics. I decided I wanted each player's entry point into the story to begin with talking about scenes and general issues, and end with defining what's important for them about ONE character in that context. No reason that has to be how it's done, though, and even SNAP could be bent away from it by taking Characteristic-manipulation authority ("the buck") away from each player and . . . sharing it, designating it in many possible patterns, randomizations, etc.

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

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