thread: 2006-01-24 : Still More Character Ownership
On 2006-01-24, Jason L Blair wrote:
Hey Vincent,
First, I want to say that, YES! Playing a supporting castmember can be great fun. (I address character role explicitly in NORMAL, TEXAS.)
I'm not sold on your point (not that you have to sell me, o'course):
Now, to get it out of the way, I'm not talking about character ownership AT ALL. I'm speaking strictly about the fact you have X number of folks around a table and Y characters (Y may equal X, may not) and Z structure to place within a shared imaginative space.
Most games define that X = players + GM, Y = PCs + NPCs, and Z = PCs are focus. Protagonism rises and swells with the challenges placed in front of the group. Certain challenges and/or scenarios allow certain PCs to shine.
Some games hold X and Y as above but value Z on a rotation. PTA, f'r instance, where certain episodes will be focused on a certain character or character dynamic.
What I'm seeing in your assertion is that X = players, Y = pool of characters (partially or wholly owned by an individual or the group), but Z = what? I'm seeing Z = Tell a story until a protagonist arises contextually/consensually. In hard practice, I'm seeing: Dominant player tells story; others twiddle fingers.
Now, I may be misreading your assertion, and how you define "fiction defining role." I dunno, very possible. If so, please correct me.
