thread: 2006-01-17 : More Character Co-ownership
On 2006-01-17, Vaxalon wrote:
Vincent,
You argued that we all share the characters... but I don't accept the argument.
As long as character creation happens in a more-or-less traditional manner, that is, I have this sheet, and I fill it out, and I write on it, and that's where the character has its anchor in the real world, and I'm the one that is responsible for portraying that character... I'm going to think of it as mine, and I'm going to value it higher than characters in which I have not made the investment of time (in terms of character sheet handling time) and emotion (in terms of portrayal).
Now if you're talking about doing character creation and portrayal in a different way... such as by handing the character sheets around in a circle, so that everyone gets some input, and moving the portrayal from person to person, then I'm behind you one hundred percent... once none of the characters are "mine" because I didn't build it myself and I don't portray it myself, then we're on the same page.
This makes SDL go "my interpretation is..."
... that either way anyone can go: "Wait? Your guy was a ninja before he became a pirate? Come on!" and that is basic group co-ownership...
This makes VAX go "Yes, they can, but..."
Yes, they can say that... but that doesn't mean that what they say has authority.
Some Systems give that authority only to the player. Some Systems give it only to the GM and the player. Some Systems could give it to anyone at the table... and you folks might play in those kinds of Systems. I haven't seen one.
It's not group co-ownership until J. Random Player says, "Now hold on..." and it has authority.
This makes LBK go "But nothing."
*Every* player has enough authority to roust the others into a chorus of "that's Lame" when it really is.
This makes SLB go "I don't want to play..."
...in any group where a player can say "My character was a ninja before he was a pirate, and before that, he was a blue pony," and our social contract (which is what creates System) doesn't allow anyone to object in more than a perfunctory way. That way lies chaos.
This makes SLB go "(cross-marginated with LBK)"
This makes TC go "Wait a sec..."
Isn't system the methods by which we agree things happen in game? If so, then someone calling BS on a ninja pirate is part of the system. Though it might not be part of the rules' mechanics.
This makes JK go "Yes..."
Yes, system can include calling BS on a ninja pirate.
But social contract includes the system for dealing with things outside the lines, and this can cross that line -- if your method of dealing with a bit of bull* ends up resulting in disfunction (ie, quitting the gaming group) that's part of the social contract, but not part of the rules of the game -- because the game is over (for you, at least).
VAX: what do you get out of giving up ownership in your character in the first place? I mean, you play with a group, right? Doing so means you can't do anything you want -- you have to accede to the group consensus, and may end up having your character get mind controlled or whatnot. Why do you subject your conception of your character to this group consensus rather than maintining the purity of your ownership (by using the character in solo fiction, frex)?
This makes VAX go "Because it's faster."
Because I like being creative in a social setting. I'm too extroverted to be a novelist.
