thread: 2006-01-05 : I suspect but can't prove...
On 2006-01-06, Vincent wrote:
I'll expand.
Thematic roleplaying demands at least one protagonist, but it's my experience that I identify with protagonists, no matter who's playing them. I don't need to play the protagonist.
This thing where we arrange our games so that there's one protagonist per player except the GM? That's only one of many, many possible ways to arrange them.
Now we have some games where there's a protagonist per player and no GM - so that's cool, that's another way.
And Capes is probably more weird & wiggly than I credit, yes, but let's have some games where there's one protagonists and some supporting cast. Let's have some games where you don't know whether you're playing a protagonist, an antagonist, or an incidental character until push comes to shove. ("Holy crap. I'm the hero after all! All this time I thought you were, but it's me!")
Neel's quibble in marginalia above is right on. One player => one protagonist is the commonest way right now, not the only way.
This makes JBR go "Buffy!"
I'm not talking about the current RPG that's supposed to be Buffy. "Playerless" play would allow us to accurately emulate something like Buffy, where there's one big main character and lots of supporting/scoobies. That'd be hawt.
This makes VB go "Not Buffy!"
Buffy's got 3-6 protagonists going at any given time. But there is sole-protagonist fiction, so yeah, hawt!
This makes JBR go "Sure, that too."
Given the scoobies are often protagonists too, there is still a sort of weight to distinguish them that is usually represented by giving the "lead" to one player and have everybody else have access to fewer stats/resources. Ditching the character-player connection means that everybody can play parts of Buffy and parts of everybody else, too.
This makes BL go "Have you been talking to Emily?"
This reminds me of a recent conversation with her. If you haven't, ask about her pulp game.
