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."

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

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