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

On 2006-01-25, Tris wrote:

Check this out:

Dave was placed in a terrible situation.  He had to look deep within himself to battle many deadly opponents, in a way noone had before.  He had to battle with himself, to remain good when it was so tempting to become evil in fighting these evil opponents.  Parts of Dave died in that struggle, parts became stronger.

Dave is a character right?  Dave is the protagonist?

Dave = Easy Company.


This makes VB go "binGO."

This makes ecb go "this is a reference to Band of Brothers"
I take it, yes?

This makes AJF go "Don't spoiler me. I'm begging you."
Such a terrific thread, and I'm reading it with one eye closed! I already had serenity shot from under me on rpg net this week. Grrr.

This makes VAX go "And in the RPG, is Easy Company played by one player?"

This makes GcL go "One player?"
Ignoring the details of what we might mean by "played" . . . Could be. Or not. I expect "not" would work better for that story. Why would we assume that it would/should always be one entity->one player? Isn't that all that's being said here?

This makes TC go "Could be..."
See, Gordon, without an actual game it's hard to say if Easy Company would be played by one player or by many. It *could be* that way or it could not. Depends on the game.

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

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