thread: 2005-09-14 : Ars Magica Ripoff Suggestions
On 2005-09-14, Eric Provost wrote:
The answer seems kinda obvious to me, and it's something I learned from um... you. So obviously I must really be missing something.
Lemmie put out my solution and you can tell me where I'm missing something.
There's no conflict between the characters because they don't exist. There can only be conflict between players. That conflict can be (but does not have to be) represented by characters. Therefore if there is a conflict then there must be a different player at each end. Therefore if you own characters on two opposing ends of a conflict then you have choices. The first choice being to relinquish control of the character that represents the opposing side of your conflict (with the other player). The second being that you still use the resources of the character that's on the opposing end of the conflict to demonstrate how they fuck up their own end of things. Meaning that your character serves your goals when they oppose their own fictional goals.
I happen to like the second option there.
To state it another way; Let's say that you've got control over Abby and Beth, and I've got Charles. Abbey is on one side of a conflict and Beth and Charles are on the other. That means that you own characters on each side of the conflict and I have one. Assuming that I want Charles to win the conflict and you want Abby to win the conflict then it would appear that Beth is the problem. She really isn't. In the fiction she supports Charles but in reality she supports Vincent. And I imagine you narrating Beth's actions/statements as being not just innefective in her goals but maybe stepping all over poor Charles' more eloquent words.
That seems like a solution to me.
Of course, there's the possibility that you're talking about a situation with just Abby and Beth being in conflict. But you can't be talking about that. Because that would make you a silly monkey.
