thread: 2006-01-05 : I suspect but can't prove...
On 2006-01-05, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
Modesty alert: I wouldn't even have thought of my own game in this context without Joshua suggesting it. But I think he's onto something.
In apocalypse girl, you've got three players: the Girl, the Dragon, and the World. The Girl is explicitly a character in the familiar sense of an identifiable person in the fiction of the game-world who does stuff and more-or-less serves the agenda of an individual player. The Dragon can be, if that player explicitly chooses a Core Meaning like "I am the Antichrist" or "I am Satan" Core Meaning and roleplays the Dragon as an individual rather than a force. The World just can't be an individual person, though that player can run and roleplay lots of characters—like a traditional GM.
Here's the thing: All three of these roles—the definitely-a-character, maybe-a-character, and not-a-character—operate by the exact same rules. Anything one of them can do in terms of narrating the fiction or game-mechanics, the others can do too.
Here's the other thing: Even if one of the players "is" or creates a character, there is absolutely no restriction on other players creating aspects of that character. I'm not talking about "well, I'll narrate what your guy does for a bit," or even Polaris-style "but only if your character changes in this way" (and remember "the Heart player has sole guidance over the protagonist" and either Heart or Mistaken can at least try to reject an assertion about any character). In apocalypse girl, you can introduce an "Engine" (game-mechanical element) into play that represents a particular character, and then I can introduce another Engine into play on my turn that represents a different aspect of that same character, and you can't stop me: If you create and narrate the Engine "Mother Theresa," I can create and narrate the Engine "Mother Theresa's predilection for brutal violence against the poor," and while you can try to destroy or redefine that Engine on later turns, you can't keep me from introducing it as both a game-mechanical entity and as a fact in the story.
So "I play a character, but other people have overt, acknowledged, systematic power over my character's person and decisions."
And no, I'm not claiming to be brilliant. I actually wanted to differentiate the roles more, and seriously considered making the World a kind of GM figure, and had in my head rules for vetoing other people's unacceptable input, but, you know what? In a 24-hour RPG, writing at work while on a project deadline, it was just easier to do it this way. That's not me: That's testimony to how far the milieu of the Forge that I'm swimming in has been permeated with these ideas to the point where they're obvious and natural.
This makes SF go "Whoa! Crossposting!"
Sorry, Ben, Neel, Vincent.
This makes NK go "No apologies needed..."
...I'm happy to see this!
This makes SF go "PS - in apocalypse girl..."
it's still true that "someone else reaching in and screwing with my character is optional," not mandatory -- but the game mechanics encourage you to do it, because it's good tactics.
