thread: 2006-01-17 : More Character Co-ownership
On 2006-01-18, Curly wrote:
#1.) Tweak of Vincent's idea at top:
I prefer if Ben's suggested change—"You, Ann, have a 2d4 relationship with" some dude—is made part of the stakes:
"Does Ann's character have a 2d4 relationship with the dude?"
That way, Ann may or may not "gut the dude like a fish" (up to her), but if she loses the bidding; she's stuck with a relationship with the Dude who she did-or-didn't gut.
This way, Ben gets to take a shot at asserting changes to Ann's character. And, Ann has a fighting-chance to reject such changes. But the system & some random chance arbitrates What Happens, fairly.
#2.) What if
In See/Raise/Escalate bidding, we let any DitV player 'use' any dice on ANY character's sheet, not just their own PC's?
Then DitV becomes like Universalis in lack of character OWNERSHIP during play.
Yet if each player still were to create just one character for the game/ and only that player were allowed to choose fallout effects, relationships, etc./ then that player would still retain unique AUTHORSHIP power over 'their' 'what's important' about that character, even as narrative OWNERSHIP is de-monopolized.
Now switch that around:
In my tweak above, Authorship is distributed (as Vincent has been proposing), but a sense of role-play Ownership is maintained. (Because Ann can fight to avoid the new trait Ben wants to impose on her.)
#3.) So—have I made Vincent's big idea more palatable to player's sense of fairness & control?,
or have I entirely missed the boat on breaking up the 'my character' monopoly?
