thread: 2006-01-24 : Still More Character Ownership
On 2006-01-27, anon. wrote:
I don't think the problem isn't an obsession with the relevance of one character over another. I don't think it ever was.
The problem with allowing my character to become a supporting character simply because that's where the fiction leads, I think, is I remain convinced, deep down, that I as a player really have ownership of a single character, that my input elsewhere is a sideline, and that the input of others into my character is a sideline. At the table, I want my play to be relevant. I want to participate meaningfully.
It's about the relevance of the player. I can't easily see what really giving ownership of my character would be like. With effort, I can see meaningful participation, with this character I usually speak for as supporting cast. I can just see it, over there, as something that might be truly great and fun.
But my habits stand between me and that kind of play - they're strong habits, and they exist because they have helped me get what I want in some games. I don't think my habits are so ingrained that they can't be surpassed. But I don't think I can get past them, with my group, without a tool.
I don't think I need a 'prosthetic' to help me play that way once I've gotten there, to borrow a turn from Ron's post.
But I think that to get there, I do need something firm to step on, some tool, some hand up.
I hope that this is inside your standards. I'm not sure if it helps; it's just how I see what you're talking about.
This makes LBK go "Agh. That was me."
