anyway.



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

On 2006-01-27, Vincent wrote:

Okay, how’s everybody?

Lisa: Am I to read your comment as saying anything other than “hey, I do that all the time after all”? That’s how I read it, but man it’s long, so if I’m missing its nuances please tell me.

As for you taking me to task: I’ll try to write clearly, you all try to read past your initial ACK. Deal?

ScottM: “Even if I’m sharing my character with others (like the previous Anna and Ben examples), I’d still be unhappy at losing my character in any one-player, one-primary character setup. The successful forms that emerged later in this thread (essentially fusing non-character based resources with enough surviving characters that could be assumed as roles) sound like they would work.

Is my perception right? Part of the Band of Brothers example’s success is that the role you take over is “the same team”, the same core story. You can expand a previously neglected character—and the team as a whole grows more complex. It seems similar to Inspectres play, where the company itself becomes a character, as players choose how to expend resources and use it.

Right on.



 

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

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