thread: 2006-01-05 : I suspect but can't prove...
On 2006-01-09, Vincent wrote:
Joshua K.: "Can we separate the question of influence (or rather, power) and portrayal?
In the control (trad style, whatever; it's a useful example), I think shared ownership is largely a matter of veto, in the same way that player-campaign ownership is largely veto.
But how much can/should you separate out control of a character from portraying it? ..."
Separating power and portrayal, yes!
Who portrays the character is pretty much just a side note on what I'm really talking about here. Far more important - and I think Tony'll agree with me - is: who's deriving power to make things happen in the game from the character? And then, who's making decisions about what kind of power one can derive from the character?
Imagine that you get to portray your character, same as always. But imagine that I get to say what your character's Spiritual Attributes are, and when they go up and down, and when they change.
This makes BL go "Huh?"
How is portrayal not a form of power? I mean, you can split the power, but you can't say "this person portrays the character, these other people have all the power." That doesn't even parse for me.
This makes NK go "Me, too, maybe...."
I'm thinking of, say, a prodution of, say, King Lear: with the exact same dialogue, action, plot, everything, you can have two completely different stories. All based on how the actors say their words and move across the stage.
But whether I'm disagreeing or not kind of depends on what V. means by "power".
This makes VB go "yeah, yeah, portrayal is power."
So when I say "portrayal vs. power" I'm really saying "portrayal-power vs. other kinds."
