anyway.



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

On 2006-01-25, Dave wrote:

Preface: I’m not pissing, here. But I am having trouble seeing how (except with GM-illusionism) you can have players who are that tied to the audience perspective, and not to the collaborator/writer perspective. Knowing what I do about you, that can’t be what you’re saying. So I’m missing something.

What I love about Ian’s approach is that the protagonism is set early and collaboratively, in Stage 1, so I know I’m supporting when I’m in control of a supporting player. Same in PTA, even with the variant you propose. But then you say “We don’t have (or want) that luxury.” and I have trouble trusting the fiction without a little framework to help me know we’ll all be jamming in the same key (did I just mangle that metaphor?)

I agree, it’s cool when the game changes in an unexpected way, in a moment, when everyone suddenly has to expand their mind and see (or decide together) what’s really happening. And I have noticed that in almost all these threads about co-ownership, that’s something Vincent consistently brings up. I guess I’m just not really clear anymore on who you want having the power to make that happen. I can see how it’s collaboratively possible if done beforehand, even just a little beforehand, but when done randomly in the moment, I don’t see that part of the fiction can be collaborative. Help!



 

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

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