thread: 2006-01-05 : I suspect but can't prove...
On 2006-01-07, Charles wrote:
I think the relationship between immersion and shared character ownership is not a trivial one, and is not covered either by "You're already playing with shared ownership (by definition), so obviously playing with more explicit and extensive shared ownership won't interfere with immersion" or by "The currently typical level of shared character ownership that is called single player-character ownership is the only type of character ownership that can support type X of immersion."
I think it requires more thought to work out the relationships between character ownership and immersion, and what aspects and styles of character ownership relate to supporting or hindering immersion for which styles of players. Which probably means more varieties of explicit and even formalized shared character ownership being developed in games as a method of exploring the question.
My own guess would be that the criteria for immersion that you have mentioned before are relevant here again. To the extent that shared character ownership supports player confidence in their ownership of a character, and their confidence in their ability to author the story/world, and their belief in the coherence of the world, explicit shared character ownership will support immersion.
There's a very interesting thing in there: in order for shared character ownership to support immersion in a character, shared character ownership needs to support player confidence in the individual player's ownership of the characters (or of a single character), such that they can act with confidence and certainty for any of the characters they want to immerse in. Perhaps that confidence in ownership needs only to last as long as the immersion does?
Initially, that seems like a contradiction, but it is certainly part of why a system of shared ownership that strongly deemphasizes the shared ownership aspect is the most common play style for people who are heavily invested in immersion (if the other players are given few validated methods to express their shared ownership effectively, they are less likely to undercut my control of my character). However, I agree that although that may represent the most obvious locally optimum solution, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily the over-all best solution, or that there aren't other local maxima that will also provide other benefits.
For one thing, the "mine, all mine" style of character ownership takes a very paranoid position on the effects of other players: since they could do something bad with my character if I gave them more extensive (or explicit) shared ownership rights, I'm going to cripple their ability to do something interesting with my character, just to be safe.
The common alternate methods of separating out active alteration of characters by anyone but the primary owners into separate (usually post-game) sessions, and the method of giving the primary owning player nominal veto rights over any suggestion are two ways of ameliorating the paranoid mode of nominal single ownership (which have been mentioned here by several people), but I agree that they aren't necessarily the only way to go.
However, I think there are certainly ways of handling shared character ownership that will decrease immersion in character, although they may compensate for it by providing other sorts of immersion. For instance, I expect that very strong shared character ownership to the point where player-character assignments are incidental and transitory could produce excellent story immersion, but weak character immersion. Many people's descriptions of playing Universalis seem to show this happening (and Universalis does seem to be capable of handling as fully and explicitly shared ownership of characters as you could possibly want).
On the other hand, surely "You don't know if your character is the antagonist or the protagonist, or if you are a supporting character" and "There is just one protagonist" aren't really that radical of play styles, are they? They don't even seem in the same category as shared ownership (except in the sense of ownership = "investment in", rather than ownership = "control over", which I guess is part of what you mean).
Actually, I think what you are asking for is games in which the shared ownership is explicit and formalized, but remains a subtle and nuanced relative of standard implicit and informal shared ownership. The extreme forms of shared ownership already exist (Universalis, Matrix Games and possibly even Capes), but they strip out the confidence in speaking from a specific character to a degree that undercuts immersion in character.
This makes VB go "this is good..."
And thought provoking. Thus: thinking.
