thread: 2006-01-10 : Pulling Coplayers In

On 2006-01-12, JasonL wrote:


When you say:

When I said "what about pull co-ownership?" and so many of you heaved this big sigh of relief, I think it's because you read me as saying "what about voluntary co-ownership?"

I was not.

Reading that in the context of your Bid Idea for 2006, and the context of the blog-plosion of commentary on the Push/Pull, Yin/Yang topic, I read you as saying:

I create this thing on a ("my") character, that the system demands you, the other player, take part in - not optional, you have to do it.

Is that right?

Like I put in a triat called "Greedy", and the system demands that you assign a mechanics penalty to it.  Or, I put "Democlese is in love" and you, the other player, have to assign who the love interest is...

Which, if that's what you're talking about, seems like Pull-Push to me...

It means I'm inviting you (i.e. pulling you) to take direct control over an aspect of the character (i.e. pushing me).  I pull one way to get you to push another way...

Put another way, Push=assertive authority (I get to say because I won/I have the power/I have the credibility) and Pull=active redirection (Yes, that happened, and in addition, this happened too; or Yes, that and then this)

I'm not talking at the mechanics level...I'm aiming at the ephemera with this...

Like others, I'm sure I've got it all wrong...


"Oh, it's you...


This makes SLB go "Go back to the t'ai chi analogy."
If pull-ephemera (adopting the clumsier term pending Vincent's clarification) isn't followed by push-ephemera, and vice versa, the game will fall down.

This makes SLB go "(so the issue is)"
Continued: So the issue is, who leads, and how hard? Is it a push, a shove, a gentle tug or a good hard yank that sets the game in motion?

This makes CS go "giving"
pull is followed by give (as in gift) as push is followed by give (as in fall back)

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

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