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

On 2006-01-24, Troy_Costisick wrote:


Vincent Wrote:
Would any or all of you please go back to your comment and read it for assumptions about character ownership? I’d be grateful.

What if we make those assumptions to no longer hold?

-If we are going to throw that stuff out, then we need to change what the players use to manipulate the in-game stuff. Character co-ownership, multi-ownership, whatever is fine, but to include the other elements you talked about, the Product the players make has to change.

-It can’t be “an advanced character” any more.  It has to be something else.  So games like you’re talking about might include mechanics for Setting Advancement or Situation Advancement rather than Character Advancement.  Thus, when a character randomly dies, or the players are playing a supporting character, the individual outcomes of the PCs are merely components of a much larger goal.

-The point of play stops being “I’ll advance my character to do/learn something cool” and becomes “I’ll advance other game components to do/see/learn something cool.”

-At first I thought I’d suggest “Story” as what we advance, but I don’t like that word here.  It’s too vague and over used in a RPG sense.  All roleplaying games advance a Story.  What we’re talking about (well I’m trying to anyway) is something more discrete and tangible.




This makes VAX go "Exactly"

This makes JBR go "Situation."

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

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