thread: 2006-01-05 : I suspect but can't prove...
On 2006-01-09, Matt Snyder wrote:
I'm not getting hung up on the "my" bit. I view its usage to indicate "the character through whom I make my primary, but not only, input into the game."
Here's what interests me about this (IMPORTANT: This is not the total of what Vincent's getting at; it's the part I'm really excited about right now) ...
Distributing player control in this way opens up the potential that when we play, we don't know who the protagonists will be. Or, perhaps more likely, we don't know which character's story we'll like best.
Why is that cool? Because it's exciting not to know where the game will lead. Because we can happily choose what the finest story-strand at the table is and reinforce it with our input (on other players' characters, presumaby).
Yes, this can happen in a more traditional set-up. But, I think it places reinforcement around the table in a new and very interesting way. It is a different emphasis, and will indeed shake up the hobby. Just think about how much assumption goes in to role-players and their player characters! It's a sacred cow of creative ownership in the hobby.
I am aware of at least one, if not two or three, game designs-in-progress that will make this happen. Based on a cursory reading, I think Ron's SPIONE does this. I have hopes my next design, 44, will do this. I can't wait!
This makes TC go "Agreed..."
Uncertainty can be elusive in some games.
This makes RC go "Aria?"
Didn't Aria have some bit in which if, for example, an orc killed off your character, you were now playing the orc?
This makes SLB go "Not Aria, or at least I don't remember it."
