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

On 2006-01-24, Jay Loomis wrote:

Two things:

1.) I totally agree with Matt on this one. Dramatically speaking, the difference between what a protagonist does and what a supporting character does is pronounced. If you don’t know up front, you’ll likely be pushing your character’s agenda—which isn’t the right thing to do if you’re supporting.

2.) Even in actual, honest-to-gosh, written-down fiction, random death is not particualrly popular. If a character is in a story in a big enough way that I, as an audience member, care about him, his death had damned well better mean something or I’m going to be pissed.

Whether you are playing a supporting character or a protagonist, if you are participating in roleplaying as a single character that character automatically qualifies for being cared about.

[spoiler movie=Serenity]
(It seems unlikely to me that there are people at this blog who want to see Serenity but have not. But, better safe than sorry.)

For example, in Serenity, I can accept the death of Book as an audience member because his death proves a point (this bad guy isn’t to be trifled with) and motivates the hero in to dangerously stupid action. I don’t like it—because I’m attached to the character—but I accept it. The death of Wash, on the other hand, does nothing for the story and just pisses me off. Oh, and I would argue that both of those characters are supporting characters in the movie, even though they had different roles in the TV show.


Now, if you are playing a game where everyone plays more than one character, I can see potential for not knowing for any given one of them.


This makes MB go "Not me, man.."
Wash I could buy, for not onlythe reasons you give, but for where it drives Zoe's story. Book died before all (any) of the loose ends of his story that were dangling throughout the series got told. I am still bitter.

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

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