thread: 2006-01-10 : Pulling Coplayers In

On 2006-01-11, Brand Robins wrote:


Writing things on the character sheet can be important. I kill puppies for satan, and all that.

However, that isn't all of what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it is important in the context of this discussion to know where the original impetus for a character element comes from, and who has both creditability and authority to change it.

In TB, you can change my character, in a way that gets described as "GOTCHA!" That seems a pretty clear indication that it hooks up with Vincent's statement of "I get to reach in and fiddle with your character." You have, in that system, the authority to reach in and fiddle. If you didn't, if you were actually changing absolutely nothing about my character, the SIS, or the game then why the hell would you bother saying it? Spending points for it? Going Boo-Yah when you do it?

Of course, you may not have the credibility to change my character as he is actually played. I can decide to ignore what you did (in which case you didn't getcha so much, I think), but that is because I chose not to reinforce something that you brought into the SIS. You still did bring it in, it's just that I don't do anything with it. That's what turns it from a hard push (if you could say it and force me to adhere to it) to a push-followed by pull (you say it and bribe me to adhere to it), or a "push with a soft place to land."

Or, to reinforce that, as JAK said in his recent marginalia posts: "So slapping a Fate on someone that they may not be too interested in is a narrative opportunity ("I want to see you try to act this out"), and a gamist opportunity ("I see you're getting close to Dark Side. Here, have a chit and maybe this will ease the pain a little"). So it's a chance to support each other... WHILE fucking around with each others' characters."

However, what I am going with along the lines of Vincent's statement of "not that I get to reach in and fiddle with your character, but that you open up pieces of your character that just demand that I fiddle with them. In that context I am talking about a situation in which you do not have the authority to put anything on my sheet unless I have first said that you can. In fact, unless I have opened it up and tempted you to do so. Taunted you to do so. Dared you to do so.

You do not get to reach in and tinker, authority or credibility wise. The authority is mine, to open up my character in a way that tempts you to tinker with it. I am the one that is the source of the element's change. It could even be that, in this situation, I'm the one with the authority to open it, but you are the one with the credibility ??? I get to say it comes up, but unless I can convince others to play it out it comes up and just sits there.

So really, it is much like the example of TB, but inverted. Rather than you pushing and then bribing me to follow through with my character, I pull you and then bribe you to follow through about my character.

P.S. I'll be back tomorrow, but for tonight my brain needs rest. To much pushing and pulling and yinging and yanging!


This makes BR go "The line starting "In that context""
should read: "I am talking about a situation in which you do not have the authority to put anything about my character's co-owned parts into play, on my sheet or not, unless I have first said that you can. Taunted you to, etc.

This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":