thread: 2006-01-05 : I suspect but can't prove...
On 2006-01-06, Vincent wrote:
Well, the thing is that "the GM has sole control of everything-but-the-characters" was never true, because the GM has always been fully subject to social pressure, fully accountable to the group, and fully incapable of enforcing any decision or any ruling against even a single player's genuine dissent. (Yet another straightforward restatement of the Looly Pooly.)
"I have sole control of my character" - even "I have sole control of my character's inner life" - has never been true either, for the exact same reason.
So whatever radical conclusions anyone wants to draw, like "no-ownership play will brainwash everyone!" or "no-ownership play will scupper Narrativism!" or whatever, bear in mind that we've been playing no-ownership secretly all this time.
This goes for any immersionists still reading me, too. "No-ownership play is counter-immersive!" you might say. I reply: it can't be, since you've been playing no-ownership all along and you've been immersing just fine.
This makes Isk go "Is identification important?"
I think I get where NoOwe is going, but do you agree it is worth protecting a player's identification with a particular protagonist?
This makes NK go "Hm..."
...that depends on what you mean by identification.
If you mean identification in the sense that your -- the player's -- social standing in the group correlates with your character's standing, then I think this goes in the other direction.
If you mean identification in the sense of Method acting, where you try to hit an altered state of consciousness that identifies your inner life with your character's, then I think collective ownership can really help you achieve this.
Whether it's worth protecting or not depends on your goals, of course.
This makes GG go "agree and disagree"
When you say "the GM has always been fully subject to social pressure, fully accountable to the group, and fully incapable of enforcing any decision or any ruling against even a single player's genuine dissent" I totally agree, and I think that most people who use the term "GM Fiat" and relate that to a default mode of play-- are overstating the case wildly. Wildly.
But I disagree slightly when you say "I have sole control of my character's inner life" - has never been true either, for the exact same reason."
There's a degree situation of like.. 'how much control' your'e willing to give up or be influenced by other players. Just like some hardcore BDSM people never use their safewords, and other people have "hard limits".. it's going to vary.
This makes EST go "If so, what's the big deal?"
Really. If everyone's "really" doing this already, what is there to smash and how will it be good OR bad?
This makes SLB go "Smash the denial!"
This makes EST go "Heh"
This is where anyone who didn't agree with you ten seconds after you started explaining the idea wanders off and finds something better to do, of course
This makes VB go "EST: that's easy."
Smash the denial, yes, but what that means is, we open up new, potentially fruitful ground for rules design. I don't believe you're interested in that, though. I may be wrong.
This makes EST go "Again, Heh."
Oh, I'm interested in new ground. I just see a remarkable amount of superior posturing about a play style most of the loudest commentors haven't even tried playing or making a game with. So forgive the lack of "OMG, genius!"
This makes PAW go "Duh. Its so obvious!"
The moment its pointed out the original contention is not only badly phrased, but logically infeasible, claim that everyone's been doing it all the time anyway, and just in denial! Genius! Matryrdom mechanics in action. I think EST has the right of it. There's nothing new here, save ever fading echoes of vanguard elitism.
This makes VB go "Jesus, are you two enen following the conversation?"
If you are, find some non-broken way to participate. I welcome your dissent and your challenges, but this is STUPID.
